Using tools to solve anagrams
Dave Baker
out what the answer is. If I'm sure it's an anagram and what the fodder is I
give it a few seconds and then type it into Jumble.
If you persevere with solving them yourself do you actually get better at it
over time or does it make no odds? Seems to me that no matter how many I
solve, and clearly it's thousands now, I still get stuck just as easily on
new ones.
--
Dave Baker
Puma Race Engines
www.pumaracing.co.uk
Camp American engineer minces about for high performance specialist (4,4,7)
Steve B.
> I don't have the patience to stare at anagram clues for ages trying to work
> out what the answer is. If I'm sure it's an anagram and what the fodder is I
> give it a few seconds and then type it into Jumble.
>
> If you persevere with solving them yourself do you actually get better at it
> over time or does it make no odds?
I remember from psychology 101 that the more often a synapse fires, the more
easily it fires in future. You can work out the implications.
Steve = : ^ )
Dave Baker
"Steve B." <prett...@every.thing> wrote in message
news:C175618E.8046A%prett...@every.thing...
But who's to say the same synapse needs to fire for different anagrams?
Paddy Grove
> If you persevere with solving them yourself do you actually get better at it
> over time or does it make no odds?
I think you'll get better over time. I tend to write the letters out
in jumble, and often the answer jumps out. Or maybe a likely component
of the answer: I might spot that the answer could end in -ATION or
something, and then it's easier to solve the whole thing.
Using a solving tool feels like cheating to me, but I do it
occasionally (and often find the answer is a word I was unfamiliar
with).
- Paddy
--
Paddy Grove, Cambridge, UK
Rage of a theologian surrounded by party extremists (5)
http://www.psae.f2s.com/Crosswords/Crosswords.htm
Remove 'no spam please' from email to reply
Colin Blackburn
> I don't have the patience to stare at anagram clues for ages trying to work
> out what the answer is. If I'm sure it's an anagram and what the fodder is I
> give it a few seconds and then type it into Jumble.
>
> If you persevere with solving them yourself do you actually get better at it
> over time or does it make no odds? Seems to me that no matter how many I
> solve, and clearly it's thousands now, I still get stuck just as easily on
> new ones.
The best anagram solvers are top-level Scrabble players (though they are
probably best of 7 and 8 letter anagrams!)
I think it does get easier as you get used to recognising patterns. My
approach is to look for letters that fit the likely part of speech that
the definition refers to, -IOUS(LY), -(AT)ED, -(AT)ING, -ABLE, combined
with any checking letters. If it doesn't come quickly then I write down
the anagram fodder in a different order to the words as presented, in a
circle or backwards. Just something to break the effect the original
pattern is having on your thinking.
If it still proves intractable I'll come back to it later after getting
more checking letters. I might then resort to TEA. I use TEA over online
anagram solvers as it has a dictionary suitable for UK advanced cryptics
and it is particularly good for more complex anagram, say where it is
partial or composite, or if you know the first and third letters are the
same. However, as I have to boot the PC to use TEA I only use it as a
last resort.
Colin
The Last Danish Pastry
news:psc0g7...@hotNOSPAMPLEASEmail.com...
> "Dave Baker" <nu...@null.com> writes:
>
>> If you persevere with solving them yourself do you actually get
>> better at it
>> over time or does it make no odds?
>
> I think you'll get better over time. I tend to write the letters out
> in jumble, and often the answer jumps out. Or maybe a likely
> component
> of the answer: I might spot that the answer could end in -ATION or
> something, and then it's easier to solve the whole thing.
>
> Using a solving tool feels like cheating to me, but I do it
> occasionally (and often find the answer is a word I was unfamiliar
> with).
I agree that practice will probably lead to improvement. Dave, next
time you are waiting in line for something, look around for words and
make amusing anagrams of them in your head. People will edge away from
you as you start to giggle.
My son, on being told that our friends, Mr and Mrs Park, had named
their new baby JESSICA RUTH, produced an apposite anagram instantly.
--
Clive Tooth
www.clivetooth.dk
Stock photos:
http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=61771
Peter Biddlecombe
"Dave Baker" <nu...@null.com> wrote in message
news:ein2kd$47q$1...@news.datemas.de...
>I don't have the patience to stare at anagram clues for ages trying
>to work
> out what the answer is. If I'm sure it's an anagram and what the
> fodder is I
> give it a few seconds and then type it into Jumble.
>
> If you persevere with solving them yourself do you actually get
> better at it
> over time or does it make no odds? Seems to me that no matter how
> many I
> solve, and clearly it's thousands now, I still get stuck just as
> easily on
> new ones.
"just staring at the clue" is solving anagrams the hard way.
Trying this early on is a bit like trying a double axel in
your first few weeks of ice skating.
But you can improve at solving anagrams. With pen and paper,
write the letters of the presumed 'fodder' in a 'random' way,
in the hope that this will suggest all/part of the answer,
so the rest falls into place, maybe with help from the
definition. If it doesn't work, try a different jumble. Some
like to put the letters in a circle, others just in a rectangle
- say 3 rows and 5 columns for 13-15 letter words. Whatever
works for you ...
Near your jumbled letters, write what you have so far from
checking letters, thus:
W _ _ / _ N _ S / _ H _ _ _ L _
and delete the letters you already have in place from your
jumble. Pondering 8 letters instead of 10 makes a big
difference. Even with no letters in place, seeing the
word-breaks in a phrase can help, especially with down
answers - these are harder to see in the grid for obvious
reasons.
Think about word-patterns, and be ready to guess parts of
words, or words in phrases. In this case, remembering what
letters can reasonably follow am initial W, and the fact
that "ONES" is often used in phrases, would help you reduce
the possibilities. If the fodder contains a rare letter,
or repetitions of the same letter, it's worth thinking about
where these can go in a real word/phrase.
Scrabble tiles are a handy tool - you can shuffle them
around more easily than letters on paper. Playing Scrabble
or playing along with TV games like Countdown can also help
Ditto all those "how many words can you make from these
letters?" games like Polygon in the Times T2 section.
You'll soon learn that if you can make NEAT, you can also
make ANTE, so you'll have lots of short anagrams off pat.
Peter B
warren montgomery
> out what the answer is. If I'm sure it's an anagram and what the fodder is
> I
> give it a few seconds and then type it into Jumble.
>
> If you persevere with solving them yourself do you actually get better at
> it
> over time or does it make no odds? Seems to me that no matter how many I
> solve, and clearly it's thousands now, I still get stuck just as easily on
> new ones.
>
anagram based puzzles). I agree with those who suggest that writing down
the letters often helps get you thinking about the answers. I am almost
always working crosswords on line though, with no pencil and paper handy,
and will use on-line tools if I get stuck. The on line anagram tools I've
found are a mixed blessing on long anagrams though because they produce a
lot of potential answers, and they don't usually include propper names and
sometimes miss the UK (vs US) spellings.
--
Warren Montgomery (wamont...@att.net)
http://home.att.net/~wamontgomery
Pete Maclean
a bunch of very serious games players. One of their favourite pastimes was
solving anagrams. For some this was for the benefit of their Scrabble
playing but not all were Scrabble players and for many it was just fun. I
eagerly joined in and am sure the experience greatly improved my anagramming
ability. They did it all mentally but these days I mostly use pen and
paper. If I get stumped or have a strong feeling that I am looking for a
word that I am not familiar with then I will not hesitate to use my
computer.
I remember one classic challenge from those days: find the one anagram of
Pepsi Cola.
Pete
eb...@lfa221051.richmond.edu
>I remember one classic challenge from those days: find the one anagram of
>Pepsi Cola.
My favorite one along these lines: one-word anagram of ROAST MULES. I
found it quite hard for such a short anagram, but your mileage may vary.
-Ted
--
[E-mail me at na...@domain.edu, as opposed to na...@machine.domain.edu.]
Dave Baker
<eb...@lfa221051.richmond.edu> wrote in message
news:einpaj$im7$1...@bigbang.richmond.edu...
> In article <c2H3h.788$Es5.750@trnddc07>, Pete Maclean <pe...@maclean.com>
wrote:
>
> >I remember one classic challenge from those days: find the one anagram
of
> >Pepsi Cola.
>
> My favorite one along these lines: one-word anagram of ROAST MULES. I
> found it quite hard for such a short anagram, but your mileage may vary.
I gave up on both of them and let Jumble do it. I doubt if I would have got
either anyway.
Gordon Murray
>
> "Steve B." <prett...@every.thing> wrote in message
> news:C175618E.8046A%prett...@every.thing...
>> Dave Baker said:
>>
>> > I don't have the patience to stare at anagram clues for ages trying to
> work
>> > out what the answer is. If I'm sure it's an anagram and what the fodder
> is I
>> > give it a few seconds and then type it into Jumble.
>> >
>> > If you persevere with solving them yourself do you actually get better
> at it
>> > over time or does it make no odds?
>>
>> I remember from psychology 101 that the more often a synapse fires, the
> more
>> easily it fires in future. You can work out the implications.
>
> But who's to say the same synapse needs to fire for different anagrams?
A moot point!
Perhaps the ability to "jumble" letters in the mind is an ability that
you either have, or don`t have....and no amount of practice or
experience will help those who just don`t have it.
Either way, the ease of access these days to "anagram engines"
has certainly made life easier for those who just couldn`t hack
it. But surely there can be little satisfaction in using such tools
to help solve a clue....or does the end justify the means?????
Steve B
For me, for an anagram at least, the greatest hit is from parsing the clue.
Actually finding the answer is also rewarding (but less so), and, if I don't
find it easily (I always try unaided first), it doesn't spoil much to have a
programme do it for me.
Steve = : ^ )
Uncle Yap
>>I remember one classic challenge from those days: find the one anagram of
>>Pepsi Cola.
>
>My favorite one along these lines: one-word anagram of ROAST MULES.
These are not as satisfying as
mouth case or
moon starer
Pete Maclean
news:g4rvk2hkduhk27ioo...@4ax.com...
In the same vein as these are THE CLASSROOM and ADROIT MINX.
Dr Ivan D. Reid
Peter Biddlecombe <newsgrou...@biddlecombe.demon.co.uk>
wrote in <gIedneu15sz3utLY...@pipex.net>:
> But you can improve at solving anagrams. With pen and paper,
> write the letters of the presumed 'fodder' in a 'random' way,
> in the hope that this will suggest all/part of the answer,
> so the rest falls into place, maybe with help from the
> definition. If it doesn't work, try a different jumble. Some
> like to put the letters in a circle, others just in a rectangle
> - say 3 rows and 5 columns for 13-15 letter words. Whatever
> works for you ...
I usually write two rows of letters (unless it's one of Araucaria's
impossibly-long anagrams), sorting them as they come into vowels and
consonants. That's usually enough jumbling for me. If I get part of
the answer (one word of a multi-word answer, for example), I'll cross its
letters off and rewrite the smaller set anew.
--
Ivan Reid, Electronic & Computer Engineering, ___ CMS Collaboration,
Brunel University. Ivan.Reid@[brunel.ac.uk|cern.ch] Room 40-1-B12, CERN
KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".
Dave Baker
"Dr Ivan D. Reid" <Ivan...@brunel.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnel1m3a.c...@loki.brunel.ac.uk...
> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 12:13:34 -0000,
> Peter Biddlecombe <newsgrou...@biddlecombe.demon.co.uk>
> wrote in <gIedneu15sz3utLY...@pipex.net>:
>
> > But you can improve at solving anagrams. With pen and paper,
> > write the letters of the presumed 'fodder' in a 'random' way,
> > in the hope that this will suggest all/part of the answer,
> > so the rest falls into place, maybe with help from the
> > definition. If it doesn't work, try a different jumble. Some
> > like to put the letters in a circle, others just in a rectangle
> > - say 3 rows and 5 columns for 13-15 letter words. Whatever
> > works for you ...
>
> I usually write two rows of letters (unless it's one of Araucaria's
> impossibly-long anagrams), sorting them as they come into vowels and
> consonants.
Same here. Consonants on the top and vowels below. I used to watch Countdown
every day a few years ago and got into the habit then. Jumbling up the
letters even more like writing things in a circle didn't seem to help
further.
I think for most words its the consonants that give you the pattern and the
vowels are just filler. You can ignore them to some extent although of
course there are exceptions. My particular blind spot seems to be long words
that start with a vowel. I rarely spot those easily.
Today though for some reason, as I plough through more dodgy Herald
crosswords, I've been getting most of the anagrams almost immediately.
Tomorrow I'll probably be crap again.
I must also add that the Rufus crosswords (RFS and EAP ones) are head and
shoulders above the other ones in the Herald. I can now usually get about
half way through his without any help and the clues actually make sense to
me. For the other three days of each week it's a lottery though. God knows
who sets those ones but sometimes they're just incomprehensible. With the
help of others on this forum I'm also now starting to realise it's not just
me. They really are crappy clues.
One I've just done stands out even by Herald standards though.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/crosswords/xwordfiles/19052006_is.html
4a 'City where the basil nut is processed' (8)
Not bad as in complex - it's trivial to solve but how lame is it? I thought
it was a misprint for a second. Maybe that was the idea.
--
Dave Baker
Puma Race Engines
www.pumaracing.co.uk
Camp USA engineer minces about for high performance specialist (4,4,7)
Peter Biddlecombe
>
> I must also add that the Rufus crosswords (RFS and EAP ones) are
> head and
> shoulders above the other ones in the Herald. I can now usually get
> about
> half way through his without any help and the clues actually make
> sense to
> me. For the other three days of each week it's a lottery though. God
> knows
> who sets those ones but sometimes they're just incomprehensible.
> With the
> help of others on this forum I'm also now starting to realise it's
> not just
> me. They really are crappy clues.
>
> One I've just done stands out even by Herald standards though.
>
> http://www.theherald.co.uk/crosswords/xwordfiles/19052006_is.html
>
> 4a 'City where the basil nut is processed' (8)
>
> Not bad as in complex - it's trivial to solve but how lame is it? I
> thought
> it was a misprint for a second. Maybe that was the idea.
I think the idea is to con you into thinking that although
you've never heard of a 'basil nut', there might just be such
a thing. If this is done at all often, alert solvers soon
learn that if they see a thing they don't know about, or a
person they've never heard of ("Tina Slub", say), they're
probably looking at anagram fodder. For some though, this
may be very welcome as a way of getting started.
If you're not enjoying some of the Herald setters, move on -
for some days a week if not all. If you're doing half a Rufus,
you're just about ready for the 'big 5' (Telegraph, FT,
Guardian, Independent, Times) if you can put up with the
chance of struggling with the harder puzzles. Of these,
the FT and Telegraph are probably a notch or two easier on
average than the other three.
Try one or more for a week or two each and then choose one
to get stuck into every day. The DT, Guardian and Times have
subscription sites where you can get the xwd for a fraction
of the price of buying the paper every day.
If you find these puzzles too hard, try the ones at
"middlebrow" papers like the Express or Mail. At a
relative's house a Sunday or two ago, I tried the Mail
on Sunday's puzzle page, produced by Chris Feetenby, who
also writes more difficult puzzles in other places. The
cryptic puzzle was pretty easy, but as far as I recall
was well-written, without indirect anagrams or similar
horrors.
None of these puzzles are free, but if you add up solving
time over the year and value your own time at more than
a few pence an hour, £25-£30 for a web-site annual sub
should be money well spent.
Peter B
Colin Blackburn
[...]
> None of these puzzles are free, but if you add up solving
> time over the year and value your own time at more than
> a few pence an hour, £25-£30 for a web-site annual sub
> should be money well spent.
It's worth adding that The Times offers two slightly cheaper (at least
in upfront costs) ways in.
The Times standard subscription is only 9.99 for the year. For this you
only get the weekday and Sunday standard cryptic and concise puzzles in
an interactive-only version.
They also offer a 4.95 taster month of the Premium service. This lets
you print off puzzles, including those in the archive, and gives you
access to their full range of puzzles.
Colin
Peter Biddlecombe
"Colin Blackburn" <colin.b...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:eit6ok$pnv$4...@heffalump.dur.ac.uk...
And apparently you can get a Guardian monthly sub for about 3.00.
>
> Colin