Crossword Help Forum
Forum Rules

Excellent: thanks drxx. It still took me a few minutes…! That synonym in 1A is a stretch I feel, but hey it’s in BRB so fair game. And in 14A I was trying to do something with Hal (Shakespeare on my brain…?) and couldn’t see past that red herring.

I hadn’t noticed the alternative form of the quotation, but it does appear on the cover of an edition of Yeats’ works in that variant form, which is curious. Yes: when there are quotation oddities or different versions, like a few weeks ago too, it’s always worth seeing what ODQ says.

The question of the maths is interesting: for myself, I found the construction immediate, and I would have found identifying the quotations *much* harder otherwise — so I definitely did the maths rather than the grid staring! — but I did wonder how exactly it would work for solvers who wouldn’t so readily have spotted the significance of the numbers, and shapes. Mind you, one of the things I enjoy — or at least can later claim to have enjoyed :-) — is when a Listener forces me to learn about something new and unfamiliar. Which they often do.

I'll happily take your word for the efficacy of the maths, mooncow - it's a skill I've got used to doing without (my circles were drawn freehand}.

The maths required in this (area of a ****** and Pythagoras’ theorem) is taught to 13-year-olds. Definitely pre O-level, as was. I’ve no idea what Drxx was looking at!

Neither did I.

...but I know what a circle looks like - and can draw one pretty accurately (before you've had a chance to get your instrument out, dodgepot).

I take your point about precision, but it’s double edged. Quinapalus could have said draw three ******* of ** cells, or been even less specific. But I think some people would have been searching forever. As it was specified, the number of options was significantly limited. Though maybe of little help to those who eschew all maths

If the instruction had been as your asterisks suggest, dodgepot, the maths would have been of no benefit and we would all have started the endgame on an even footing.

I think there was a non-obvious link from the properties of the shape to knowing exactly how and where to draw it. And that’s me speaking as a mathematician. Yes, the actual maths needed is fairly elementary, but it’s spotting what’s needed that’s the trick! However, if you happen to find a quotation instead, and know what shape you’re looking for, you can figure out exactly how to draw the shape from that, instead of from the maths. So there are alternative ways around it. There are often parts of Listeners that I find very challenging one way around but by using some ingenuity I find other ways to get there, and one of the reasons I admire these puzzles is their attention to enabling that. Someone who knows that area better than I will probably scoff and tell me it was really quite straightforward if only I could have seen it the right way. And they’re probably right. We all get there in the end in our own quirky and individual ways!

Yes, mooncow, I read enough to realise that the grid itself provides the missing measurement - and had I the pointy instrument to hand a few stabs might have got me a workable radius/starting point (knocking one up using two pens and an elastic band was always an option, of course). And searching the grid in circles is particularly tough if you don't know exactly what you're looking for. Still, I got there in the end (sheer doggedness again).
Of course (as dodgepot implies) ''Even a child knows how to do it!'' - but this child was taught by graduates of the Spanish Inquisition School of Arithmetic. Nobody expects that (I certainly didn't).