Masters category-Results
- 113 – Chin Kar Ping,Sam Rahman,Jayaram Menon, Liong Chian Min
- 104 – Chai Kok Khai, Chong Voon Kiat, Margaret Sha, Florence Teng
- 102 – Wong Chiang Chuen, Claire Chin Siow Lyn, Goh Teck Koon,Julie Tan Hui Siang
- 101 – Muhammad Razif Ahmad, Darmataksiah Abai, Gary Guna Sager, Raja Zaen Raja Hizam
- 101 – Alexander Hoh, Andre Teh, Rosemawarni Binti Abdul Rahman, Mohd Shahrin Bin Mohd Zainuddin
- 99 – Dato Ramesh Rajaratnam, Chong Foo Seong, Liew Kok Seng, Lim Kong Yew
- 98 – Rajj Melambaran, Tommy Ng, Loh Chee Kwan, Lim Say Chye
- 90 – Suresh Vasudevan, Justin Chow, Yee Choon Heng, Chiam Tat Hong
- 86 – Angie ‘Teh Sook Mei, T’eh Boon Kai, Yow Hui Hui
- 85 – Christopher Foo, Michael Pang, Adrian Wong, Toh Weng Ngai
- 84 – Ruban Chelliah, Angeline Chelliah, Mohan Campos,Adrian Chivapathy
- 84 – Selina Yong, Toh Wei Ming,Toh Su Mei,Ho King Mun
- 83 – Tan Eng Siang, Ong Kheng Heng,Wong Sze Lynn, Diana Foong
- 78 – Simon Mathew, Eeswaran Kanesalingam,Venkateswaran Nagappan, Jamie Lim
- 78 – Lau Kuan Cheng, Tan Chee Chiew, Tan Tsiau Way, Kok Pooi Hoe
- 75 – Haji Suhaimi Zainal Abidin, Teoh Cheow Teong, Lily Loh
- 68 – Kamarudzaman Sanusi, Peh Kok Hun, Jasvinder Singh, Wong Poh Weh
- 67 – Tan Kok Cheeng, Chan Kah Sing, Anwar Jeffry, Kumaran Nagapa
- 67 – Yeap Heng Boon, Pavananthan Kanapathipillay, Shandra Dass, Ho Mun Yee
- 58 – Lim Kim Meng, Jeffery Wong, Viki Lim, Richard Tan
- 48 – Steven Arockiaraj, Sanjay Abdullah, Rahmah Othman, Sumita Devadas
In the Open Category, last year’s winner LANUN INC emerged Champion again after TOS decided not to promote them to the Masters category.
- 113 – Prasath Ramasamy, Tan Cheng Peng, Ho Kin Soon, Rajesh Awat Ram
- 112 – Salehuddin Yusof, Mazri Muda, Asri Mohd Ali, Sharifah Nur Syed Ali
- 110 – Lee Kong Hor, Vincent Tan Poh Chye, Soo Mei Ling, Bonita Yone Oi Lin
- 110 – Ahmad Fadzil Ramlee, Amir Hamzah Zakaria, Mohd Izhar Abdul Shukor, Saridah Ismail
- 107 – Harinderjit Kaur Nanda, Rajini Kuganasan, Malina Mahadavan, Dinesh Kumar
- 106 – Edward Yeap Hock Swee, Lai Kong Wai, Goh Leep Sean, Stephen Chin Chee Meng
- 105 – Lee Ling Fei, Yeong Kig Siew, Woo Ee Wen, Joshua
- 105 – Faizal Bin Mydin Pichay, M Khairie Bin Kemat, Ezarisma Azni Bin Mohamad, Sarizal Bin Amir
- 104 – Anis Syahrein, Mohd Sharif Sanji, Shahril Nizam, Shahrul Nizam
- 101 – Keith Joseph Rozario, Eugene Cheng Boon Keong, Yeong Kig Yeuong, Lee Chai Suan
Posted before results
Crash boom bang. Latent Talent is coming to dinner with no anxiety. I’m going to enjoy dinner.
My money’s on
1st – Cryptically Challenged
2nd – HrU
3.rd – One of the newer Masters.
Dinner on me if we scale it, Mike!
My favourites are:
1. He is fine excluding a back injury, & co.
2. He had beer couple of hours before midnight, & co.
3. Quietly take off and corner the pig from behind, & co.
[Reply]
the beer guy looks confident just now.
[Reply]
good luck to all teams.
my team is competing this yr too, this time without me as i am still at islamabad.
[Reply]
The beer guy would be lucky to get into the top 5.
1. He is fine excluding a back injury, & co.
2. Quietly take off and corner the pig from behind, & co.
3. Nutty Spring Chicken
4. HrU
5. The Lucky Ones
[Reply]
And the long lost from hunt scene, im totally beat from today’s hunt. Grandmasters, toh toh ci kau!
Tabik!
[Reply]
appreciate the live feed. will b a loyal customer tonite (watching fm a distance).
good luck all!
[Reply]
Once again, congratulations to Jay & team. Definitely deserving winners and my favourite on-paper.
On another note, just learnt that I missed out on a lucrative trifecta payout (for predictions). Sigh! Guess, I need to wash it all down with a mug of beer
Mike, what happened to the promised live feed? Hee hee.
[Reply]
Flat battery, had no power source around me!!!
[Reply]
Ha ha … a modern journalist’s nightmare.
[Reply]
Congrats to Jayaram and Team. They were totally outstanding yesterday. As a new team in master category, Space Pirates gain good experience. Biggest lesson learnt was time management and strategy which we didn’t follow yesterday. Overall had fun hunting. Also thanks for the encouragement given by fellow masters/regulars/friends to Space Pirates before and after the hunt. Truly Appreciate them.
[Reply]
Being in the hunt seen for some time now … it was really disappointing to hear fellow hunters (masters) … who are suppose to be a role model … boo-ing winners in the open category.
Its just poor sportsmanship.
[Reply]
First of all, congratulations to all teams for doing a good job in the hunt. As a new hunter, I had a great time on Sunday to see that there are a lot of people who enjoys treasure hunting as much as I do.
Next, I may not be in the hunting “seen” (scene) long enough to comment here but when I saw the comment by Anonymous, I just could not help myself but to express what I felt about that night.
If you have been in the hunt “seen” (scene) for some time now, you should know that BOOing may not be a bad thing. Hunters do take BOOs as YEAYs. No?
Having said that, yes, BOOing openly on that night may not be the most ethical thing to do.
Here is what I think about treasure hunting and what happened that evening.
I love treasure hunting a lot and it is the only thing I look forward to every weekend. In every treasure hunt I attend, I hope to see some improvements in myself and in my team. Of course we do make some silly mistakes here and there and that’s when we learn. Now when you reached a certain level of hunting, you want to improve more that’s when you hunt with the masters. I always think and still think that treasure hunting is meant for self-development and group work above anything else. Of course a win or two will be good after a heavy investment.
Now, about the masters list. It is very funny to see that there are quite a lot of hunters who has been hunting for some years to be afraid to enter the list. Why? Is it because there are lesser hunts to join? Is it because you may not stand a chance to win big? Since when winning is a priority in treasure hunting?
In this particular SUN HUNT, the current winners were suppose to be in the masters category after they won the open category last year. I would look up to them if they would take up the challenge to hunt with the greats this year. I would see them as the team who is courageous enough to challenge the people who has been hunting for more than 10 years. It would encourage me to be better, too. But they are not setting the right example. They knew that they were suppose to be in the masters category but they kept quiet and joined the novices. Where is THAT sportsmanship?
Ok, we can give them a benefit of the doubt that they thought that they should be the one to beat and it sets the mark for all the rest of the novices. I hope so because only then I can still look up to them. If they say that they are not ready then I will be disappointed because a few master hunters were not ready too when they were listed and they still took up the challenge. What about that?
I am looking at this situation as a new hunter hoping to be good in this game some day. So I hope to see strong regular teams challenging the masters so that there’s improvement for everyone and including the CoCs. Hey, it’s a big challenge for them as well when everyone’s improving.
To the current winners in the open challenge, if you really have the passion in treasure hunting, then like a father to a child, please show the new ones that you can do it at the masters category.
[Reply]
One of the New Ones Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 6:39 am
Oh. I stand corrected to what I have just commented.
[Reply]
Wow! Looks like I’ve missed out on a very interesting hunt!… what with the tougher questions this year, and the booing!
There were 20 newly-promoted masters in the Time Out Solutions’ Hall of Fame. The criteria for those promotions have been anything but clear-cut. Although there were “guides” announced by TOS for eligibility for master status, those guides were not strictly adhered to. It’s therefore not surprising that some people were not happy with the promotions to master; and ultimately the result(s) of the hunt.
Apparently, a lot of the dissatisfaction were against the Open Category winners, but actually the party that truly deserved the booing was none other than TOS. For it’s TOS that’s calling the shots as far as which teams go to which categories.
Oops!… running late for work!…which is good I guess, because I have a lot more to comment!… hahaha!
Quickly now,
Not in favour of programs, but must be roasted
A line from a treasure clue in the master category. A wrong solution on technical grounds. But I’ll elaborate later.
Later, folks!
[Reply]
I can’t understand why Lanun Inc is getting all the brick bats and flak from winning the hunt.
If I were Lanun Inc and was not promoted to masters by TOS, i will too compete in the open category.
They were great and won fair and square in the open category.
So if anyone were to be criticised , shouldnt it be TOS for their subjective criteria for promotion to masters.
[Reply]
I couldn’t agree more with Anon.
TOS should be criticised for being inconsistent with the promotion of Open Category winners to the Masters Category. If I remember correctly, the Open Category winner in the Sun Hunt 2007, Ultrasaurus was promoted to the Masters Category in the Sun Hunt 2008. However, that was not the case for the Lanun Inc when they won the Sun Hunt 2008 in the Open Category.
Hope that TOS will take note of this and do justice in the future Sun Hunts.
[Reply]
“One of the new ones” … thank you for correcting my english. And before criticizing what i said, you should have known better that people who are in the Masters List are purely the decision of TOS, not ones self.
“Anon” … Thank you for explaining what i didn’t in detail.
[Reply]
Anonymous Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 11:31 am
My point was just pure “sportsmanship” … which was purely not shown on that night. I look up to masters being a role model to the guys in the open. But after that night, my perception has changed.
[Reply]
One of the New Ones Reply:
November 10th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Thank you for making it clear to me. I apologize for the statements I have made to the champions. Could Michael please remove my earlier statement. Thank you.
[Reply]
Now where was I?… Ah the treasure clue!
Not in favour of programs, but must be roasted
And the intended solution was roasted GRAMS (apparently a kind of nut).
The solution involves a bit of maneuvering—firstly, by word substitution and simplification; and then to be followed by the deletion process.
“in favour of” = PRO or FOR
Therefore, when simplified, the clue becomes:
(1) Not FOR programs, but…
or
(2) Not PRO programs, but…
And now we come to the real problem of this riddle. The setter had intended the word NOT as a deletion indicator (masters, please correct me if I’m wrong here; for I wasn’t there for the explanation by the CoC).
I can readily accept NO as a deletion indicator. For example, a cup of coffee with NO sugar. Meaning the coffee without sugar. But I’m not sure if I can accept NOT as the deletion indicator, i.e.
coffee, NOT sugar => coffee without sugar?
And even if we change the order of the words, it still won’t help:
NOT sugar coffee => coffee without sugar?
Therefore, is it accurate to say,
NOT PRO PROgrams => grams?
I’ll post this and continue shortly…
[Reply]
When setting cryptic clues, setters are faced with 2 main tasks:
(1) He must say what he means, albeit through wordplay;
(2) He will try to deceive the solver by giving a misleading surface reading/storyline.
And the best clues are those which can have both of the above. However, sometimes he can’t get both. And when that happens, (1) above should prevail. There are some exceptions, of course, but to be fair to the solver, the setter should always be accurate in his intention.
Having said that, in the case of a treasure hunt, setters are also quite often allowed to set “non-specific” clues. In such a case, the solver may have some ideas of what he’s looking for, but will have to scan the sector and work his way back to the clue.
An example from my recent hunt:
Q) Agak gelap kandungan kolam.
A) D’imola
There are several possibilities for “Agak gelap”; and “kandungan kolam”. The solver will have to see the available signboards within the sector to fit DIM = AGAK GELAP, and OLA = kandungan KOLAM. The answer is still exclusive because DIM confirms OLA and vice versa.
The question we must ask ourselves now is whether we can solve—not just guess—NOT PRO PROGRAMS as deleting PRO from PROGRAMS to arrive at GRAMS. Is it fair to expect the solver to have GRAMS in his “possible candidates” list?
Of course, some solvers may then stumble upon a packet of CAMEL brand, of GRAMS and see the intention of the setter. And with nothing better to offer, they submit this item. It’s because he see the intention of the setter in spite of the wrong solution. The rest who did not get to see GRAMS will have to pay for their bad luck.
[Reply]
Coffee, not sugared please, means coffee without sugar.
In this sense, I suppose one can accept “not” as deletion key.
[Reply]
Coffee, not sugared please, means coffee without sugar.
In this sense, I suppose one can accept “not” as a deletion key.
[Reply]
Ah! that would be a good try by the CoC, Rence!
So should the clue be:
PROgrams, not PROed please!
Oh! I’m late for my run!
[Reply]
Ah! 2 persons have since texted me regarding this subject! To be fair to the CoC, I must hasten to report that apparently NOT can be a deletion key based on the cryptic crosswords book. I’m unable to verify it, because I don’t have one with me right now!
I can remember at least 3 occasions when I have been “proven” wrong in my analysis.
1) There was once when I commented against a question—I believe by the same CoC—on the word “without”. But a master hunter, renroc, enlightened me of an alternative meaning to that word, and I had no choice but to admit defeat! I therefore accepted that solution.
2) Recently, I was up against yet another master in “A Hunter’s Tale”. This time on the acceptability of L = POUND. He provided me with a link to prove this equation. I acknowledged the acceptability based on Webster, but I personally disagreed with it in spite of Webster! However, it’s good to know that L = POUND, because I may need that knowledge to solve future hunt questions.
3) And now it seems that a cryptic crosswords book has yet again beaten me by accepting NOT as a deletion key. I can’t see the logic of this as per my argument above. But if it’s true that it’s found in the book, then I must be fair to the CoC. For he’s after all true to the books! I must therefore humbly accept his solution on the strength of the crosswords book.
I’m afraid I’m more down to earth when I set hunt questions. I prefer to keep things simple. And I shall not use L = POUND; or NOT as deletion key in my questions. So bear in mind that if ever you see any questions by me (maybe in a virtual hunt in my blog), and if you see the word NOT in it, you should be assured that it’s not a deletion indicator used in its context here.
However, I must applaud the CoC of theSun Hunt master because I guess masters can be expected to know the cryptic crosswords book by hard?
This reminds me of a word I used while I was playing scrabble with a friend ages ago. I came up with the word TRANQ and he refused to accept that word. I flipped open my Official Scrabble Players’ Dictionary (Merriam Webster) Third Edition to prove its existence. Those of you who’re familiar with this book will also know that there’re many other strange words, e.g. ATAP, TSKTSK and ZYZZYVA, to name a few. But because I used to play scrabble for the money, I had no choice but to memorise all these silly words. I have long since given up because it dawned upon me that scrabble became increasingly more about memorization and it took the fun out of the game! I think the dictionary is gathering dust somewhere on my shelves now. I doubt that I’d use those silly words, for example, in my hunt questions no matter what the dictionary says! Because I simply can’t expect the hunters to have that kind of exceptional vocabulary!
[Reply]
Oops!… I meant by heart… hehehe
Have to be careful now… might get my English corrected… hehehe
[Reply]
Hmmm… I really should be sleeping right now. Instead I’m barely staying awake on these interesting Qs!… HAHAHA!
But before I go to sleep, can anyone confirm that I get these questions and answers correct? Hopefully, by tomorrow someone will have confirmed them. Thanks.
Q14) Metal refined with arsenic.
A14) SELAMAT
and
Q27) Excellent start and end harbouring another.
A27) ELAINE Beauty Care Saloon
Goodnight, folks.
[Reply]
Mike Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 12:01 am
correct bro, both Qs involved your pet peeve – double duty.
[Reply]
Ah! Very good!… hehehe… my pet peeve, huh?
Anyway, for the benefit of the new hunters, let me quickly explain here about “double duty”.
There is a “rule” in cryptic clueing against the use of words more than once in a single clue, i.e. one word having two duties. To quote an example from an internet source:
Q) Hat could be dry
A) DERBY
In the above example, “HAT” is the definition part of the clue; “COULD BE” is the anagram indicator; “BE DRY” is the fodder. The letters in “BE DRY” are rearranged into DERBY, the intended answer.
It can be seen from the clue that BE is used twice for 2 different duties—once as a part of the anagram indicator; another time as the a part of the fodder.
As a clue comprising:
[definition][anagram indicator][fodder]
the solution is impossible, because if COULD BE is the anagram indicator, then we’re left with DRY for the fodder which can never be transformed into DERBY. On the other hand, if BE DRY is the fodder, then we’re only left with COULD for the anagram indicator, but COULD on its own is not an anagram indicator (unless it’s again accepted in the crosswords books!)
That I don’t condone double duty in cryptic clues is not news to many of my readers. I’ve written against double duty a couple of times. And I’d like to mention here that I have quite a number of supporters, including grandmaster Jayaram Menon, the current champion of theSun Hunt Masters.
Now, it has been suggested to me that Q14 of theSun Hunt Masters 2009 is a case of double duty. But this I do not agree.
I’ll post this first and continue shortly…
[Reply]
Mike Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 9:21 am
bro, give better e.g of double duty lah. It’s very possible the setter uses “could” as the indicator. I’ve not check the crossword dict. but I don’t see why “could” cannot be anagram indicator.
[Reply]
ckoh Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Sorry about that, Mike, I’m unaware of “COULD” as anagram indicator. But I can’t rule out that the crosswords dictionary accepts that too as a valid anagram indicator! I was in a hurry this morning, and I decided to simply adopt an example from an internet source, namely from Wikipedia. Those who’re interested to read more can check it out here (scroll down to “History and development”)
And those of you who’re up for a boring long grandfather story can also check out my past discussion on this topic in my blog here.
I will still discuss on Q27 later.
[Reply]
2 Romans 1 Impostor Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 10:54 am
Educating CoCs the KUMON way
ckoh Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Not really educating CoCs as far as I am concerned. More like a discussion and perhaps even debate on these issues. Hopefully, we can all learn a bit more and maybe establish some sort of consistency in hunt questions.
Being the stubborn person that I am, I don’t normally give in very easily in my debates. But I do at times surrender, as the 3 qouted examples above.
ckoh Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 10:31 am
Oops!… looks like the link to my past discussion is broken. Here is it again:
http://ckoh1965.blogspot.com/2008/11/thesun-hunt-2008-duty-revisited.html
[Reply]
Q14) Metal refined with arsenic.
A14) SELAMAT
The above is a unique example where the fodder is broken up into two parts, and then separated by several words; the anagram indicator found between the two.
In this case, METAL is the fodder, and ARSENIC (Symbol: As) is also a part of the fodder. It means that both these elements are to be used to form the required answer, SELAMAT.
At first glance, it does appear like the anagram indicator, REFINED, has been used twice, i.e. once for METAL, and another time for AS (arsenic). But in this unique case, in spite of the locations of the words in the clue, REFINED is only used once! The setter is instructing the solver to rearrange the letters found in METAL with AS—together—to form another word by using the indicator REFINED. Only one operation is involved in this case, and REFINED is used only once for this operation. REFINED, therefore, has only one duty. I think this question is sound from the technical point of view.
What I really want to discuss is Q27, which is more interesting because, not only is it wrong due to double duty, but because the solution can’t work even if we can allow double duty!
BUT! if continue this discussion now, I’m really gonna be late for work!… HAHAHA! So it will have to wait till later!
Cheers!
[Reply]
renroc Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 8:21 am
Agree with you that there is no double duty in Q14. Though generally the fodder is supposed to be contiguous, the separation in Q14 is acceptable as the whole Q is a statement that ‘A’ is mixed with ‘B’.
One of the reasons why I couldn’t solve Q27 was that I was concentrating on looking for words that fit E…D or E…T
However, ‘LAIN’ should have triggered a ‘force-fit’ to accept a ‘not so fitting’ but probably correct answer.
[Reply]
Q27) Excellent start and end harbouring another.
A27) ELAINE Beauty Care Saloon
A deliberate attempt by the CoC to confuse the hunters by the use of START and END together in the clue. These are both possible cryptic indicators, i.e. referring to the first and last letters of the fodder.
Deceptions are, however, allowed in cryptic clueing. In fact whenever I set hunt clues, I’d spend a substantial portion of the time and efforts on finding new twists in the clues to deceive the hunters. However, no matter what’s done to the clue, the end result must be something accurate for the intended solution.
To cut the long story short (if that’s even possible at all when I’m commenting!), the CoC intends START as the initial indicator. It tells the hunter to extract the first letter of the fodder.
The hunter will have to identify which is the fodder? Before answering this question, let us now have a quick look at the following scenario. Ignoring the surface reading for a moment, let’s imagine that the clue is set like this:
Q27) Start excellent and end harbouring another.
In this case, assuming that we still use START as the initial indicator, we have several possible choices:
1) “excellent” is the fodder. Therefore, we need to extract “e”, which is the first letter of “excellent”;
2) “excellent and end” is the fodder. Meaning we can get “eae” which are the first letters of “excellent”, “and”, and “end”;
3) “excellent” and “end” fodder, but the word “and” does not take part in the operation. In this case, the hunter sees the “instruction” as:
[first letter(s) of] (the word) EXCELLENT and (the word) [END]…
4) All the words in the sentence except “Start” is the fodder. Meaning the answer is the combination of all the first letters from all those words.
To take (3) above, one can arrive at EE, which are the first letters of “excellent” and “end”. And then those EE contains (harbouring) LAIN (another) to get ELAINE.
I’ll post this and continue in a new frame…
[Reply]
OK, now we come back to the actual clue as given in theSun Hunt Masters:
Q27) Excellent start and end harbouring another.
Now we have a different scenario. The initial indicator START is not at the beginning of the sentence, but found between the two intended fodders. We need to execute two separate operations here. (i) We need to extract the E from “excellent”; and (ii) We need to extract the E from “end”. Those are separate operations and can exist independently from one another. But in this case we only have one initial indicator in the word START. It means that START is first used as initial indicator for “Excellent” to derive E. Then it is used again for the second time on “end” to derive the other E. That’s two separate duties for the initial indicator START. Again we see the violation of the cryptic clueing “rule”.
But let’s pretend for a moment that we can all accept double duty in cryptic clues. Can we then accept the solution intended by the setter? Well, let’s find out. Ignoring LAIN = ANOTHER, we shall focus solely on the 2 Es from “Excellent start and end…”
To be able to see clearly what we’re dealing with in deriving the 2Es, we need to isolate the 2 operations as follows:
A) Excellent start:
This is quite straightforward. START is the initial indicator and therefore we can get the E from “Excellent”.
B) start and end:
START is used again, as I said, for the second time for a second duty as the initial indicator here. But the question now is: Which is the fodder?
1) Is “and” the fodder, since it’s adjacent to the indicator? (In which case we can derive A)
2) Is “and end”, together, the fodder? (In which case we can derive AE)
3) Is “end” the fodder, thus ignoring “and” totally? (In which case we can derive E)
I suppose there are good arguments to support options (1) and (2). But those are not the intention of the setter. The setter’s intention is option (3). Therefore it is that option that we should investigate.
Will post this now, and then taking a break for lunch. At the same time some of you can quickly rush to the pharmacies to buy some panadols for your migraine. Will continue again later…
(Mike, if you’re getting too tired of my nonsense here, please let me know, and I will stop… HAHAHA!)
[Reply]
Generally speaking, in a typical cryptic clue, the indicator is located immediately next to the fodder. But there are exceptions to this general rule. We have seen an example in Q14 earlier, where there’s that “with” separating REFINED and ARSENIC. There are other examples too, but I shall not give them all here, because I might need to use some of them in my coming hunt (smile.)
Last of the Mohicans
Would you believe it, the above line can be seen, cryptically, as referring to the single letter “S”. Because LAST is the indicator and MOHICANS is the fodder. And of course the last letter of MOHICANS is the “S”.
But what about “of” and “the”, which are the words found between LAST and MOHICANS? In this case, it is OK to drop “of” and “the” from the end result because those words are there to reinforce the instruction. If anything, they can only help to make the intention of the setter clearer!
The solver sees the clue as:
Last of the word MOHICANS
In this case those words between the indicator and the fodder are useful in making the intention of the setter clearer. Therefore, they’re there for a purpose.
Likewise, in Q14, the solver sees:
(the letters in) METAL refined with (the letters in) AS.
“with” is there in the clue for a purpose.
But in the case of:
Start and end
“and” has no purpose. It plays no role in reinforcing the intention of the setter; neither has it any purpose to be there in the clue. In fact, it has a damaging effect to the setter’s case! It is wrong to just ignore “and”, and simply jump over it to take the E from “end”.
[Reply]
And now we come a the reality of treasure hunting.
Quite often, we come to a clue which baffles everyone in the car. Then we find a signboard which answers one part of the clue. However, we can’t connect the board with the remaining part of the clue. But because there is nothing better within the sector, we make a guess—a calculated guess if you like—that the setter made a mistake in his clue, and offer that “not fully fitting” answer anyway.
I suppose that’s what master renroc meant when he said:
“However, ‘LAIN’ should have triggered a ‘force-fit’ to accept a ‘not so fitting’ but probably correct answer.”
[Reply]
OK, I’m done boring your readers, Mike—for now!… hehehe.
[Reply]
renroc Reply:
November 11th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Yes, that’s what I meant.
My initial guess was to look for E…D (no extra words).
Alternatively, E…T would be correct too, since ‘START and END’ would then be the two indicators for the common fodder, ‘EXCELLENT’,
and ‘AND’ would not be superfluous.
[Reply]
Hallelujah (for the end of story)!
Q27) Excellent start and end harbouring another.
I believe you may have misunderstood the compiler. There really is no Double Duty involved here. The solution according to my understanding is really:
E = excellent (accepted abbreviation)
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/e
E-(ANOTHER)-E = E-LAIN-E (ie. E at the Start and End of the sign containing “Lain”)
[Reply]
ckoh Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 7:03 am
Sorry about that, 2R1I. Before I discussed Q27, I actually made sure what was the explanation by the CoC by asking for conformation from at least 2 masters who were there to hear the explanation from the CoC himself. All this was through text message and email. The explanation I got from my sources was according to what I discussed here. I supposed my sources were wrong.
[Reply]
ckoh Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 7:04 am
Oh, and by the way, if that were indeed the explanation by the CoC, then I’d say “HARBOURING” was not required.
[Reply]
Dear All, on very rare occasions (like 2R1I comment above) the anti-spam on this blog wrongly identify genuine comment as spam and your comment goes to a folder for my approval. This tend to happen especially if you have a link in your comment.
If your comment does not appear immediately, please give it sometime until I get to it. If it’s urgent you may buzz me.
[Reply]
hey mike,
Maybe you can have a separate folder for comments / debates on hunt questions.
Ckoh, u are right,,,u tend to overdo it (ur comments) and it can become boring. My personal opinion.
[Reply]
ckoh Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 7:20 am
Adrian,
Sorry about that, my friend. I can imagine that to grandmasters like you and some others, my comments are boring, because obviously the discussions are too basic—mainly things that you already know.
On the other hand, some new hunters have said that they can learn quite a lot of things—not necessarily the central subject matter—from my comments. From experience, detailed explanations, giving examples and other references are good learning means. But unfortunately, they have the tendency of making the text quite long!
Please just ignore my comments if they bother you too much. But if Mike would like to have a separate folder/post for discussions/debates as per your suggestion, that would be good also.
Thanks.
[Reply]
hey – out of curiousity, is there a databank of previous hunt questions and answers? (apart from the one found on this site)
[Reply]
Mike Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
The “Macam Macam Adaaaa” team used to post the Q&A on their blog.
They have stop doing so lately. Lets hope they will start again. DQ boleh?
[Reply]
slasher Reply:
November 12th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
yea…they used to do that but only until end of 2008..
i found zahrol’s sample online also…:)
[Reply]
Mike Reply:
November 16th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Macam2Ada site updated with a few new Q papers recently.
[Reply]
Ruben Reply:
November 17th, 2009 at 12:43 am
thanks… btw, what’s the url?
Ruben Reply:
November 17th, 2009 at 12:51 am
found the macam2ada site….thanks for the tip…. are there many treasure hunt related websites online? does anyone have a list?
Hi,
Depends on which hunt question you want though…there are some out there available.
[Reply]
ckoh i am a new hunter , i find ur commet very helpful
[Reply]
Hey All, The latest TOS Hall of Fame was updated with LANUN INC team members. They updated only yesterday. Isn’t this toooo late. Did the BOOOS made TOS realised their blunder. So to avoid further confusion the list is updated now.
[Reply]
Ckoh,certainly need people like you to enlighten newbies like me..
[Reply]
ularsenduk and mimpi,
I’m glad to know that you have benefited from my comments. Sorry for taking such a long time to respond. I wasn’t sure if it was just Mike masquerading as a snake… hehehe. He has convinced me now.
I will continue to share my views and analysis on hunt questions every now and then—with Mike’s permission, of course—when something interesting comes up.
However, you should know that I am not a very experienced hunter. I am very, very junior when compared to the rest of the masters in the TOS’ Hall of Fame. In fact, I was sort of ushered into that Hall of Fame via the back entrance last year, instead of by merits of winning major hunts. Therefore, you should be aware that other masters may not agree with my views/analysis.
[Reply]
Am going through the Q&A of the Open Category of theSun Hunt now. Just curious to know some things from your readers, Mike, especially the Malay ones.
Chit-chat in Malay is borak-borak. All this while, I’ve been using that word but my pronunciation may be different from that of the west Malaysians.
When we pronounce the word “BORAK”, do we pronounce it with a silent “K”, i.e. the same way we pronounce the words “POKOK” and “KAKAK”? Or do we pronounce that “K” as in “PEKAK” and “ELAK” (distinct “K” sound)?
Ni nak tanya dari segi cara sebutannya je. Kalau nak jawab dalam Melayu pun boleh ‘gak.
[Reply]
Mike Reply:
November 19th, 2009 at 10:13 am
what you’re looking for is any hunter who speaks the language well. Please keep the discussion and this site non race based. Thank you.
[Reply]
ckoh Reply:
November 19th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Not at all, Mike, never crossed my mind to make this anything about race. But I thought as far as pronunciation of a Malay word, the authority lies in the Malays, that is all. Of course I’m not saying that non-Malays don’t speak the language well. In fact, I consider I myself speak it very well!
I apologise if what I said earlier appeared like it’s about race.
[Reply]
Yes CKoh…We do pronounce it with the “K”…:)
I dont know about others but at least I do….
[Reply]
Thanks. That agrees with my own pronunciation too, slasher.
In other words, what you’re saying, slasher, BORAK-BORAK when spoken to mean chit-chat or “idle talk”, does not sound like BORA-BORA, the island, right?
Any Malay hunters can confirm this pronunciation too?
[Reply]
To me, the BORAK-BORAK is pronounce with the K so it wont sounds like the island…hehehe…And for that particular question there is a BORAK-BORAK sign before the hunters actually enters the sector…
I am not sure there is much active malay hunters here but you might be surprise if you got a few replies suddenly..ahhaha….
[Reply]
Yes ckoh…borak-borak is pronounced with the letter K( distinct ‘K’ sound)…the same goes for all the malay words ending with the letter K.
There is no such thing as the silent K pronounciation…if you pronounce all the words ending with the letter K properly (in bahasa baku), then you should pronounce them with the letter K (ie. distinct K sound)
Hope that helps…
[Reply]
ckoh Reply:
November 19th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Yes, xeno, of course there is not really a silent K. And yes, as far as bahasa baku goes, all Ks should be pronounced. But not all of us speak bahasa baku, do we? We don’t really pronounce POKOK the same way as we pronounce KOKOK (ayam)? Or KAKAK the same way as PEKAK?
But the point I’m trying to make here is that when a “sounds like” indicator is used, the intended fodder, though spelt dirrerently, should sound reasonably close to the word we’re referring to, e.g. E-TWO sounds very close to ITU; Q BAR (where the R is silent) sounds very close to CUBA (the country).
But my argument is BORAK-BORAK doesn’t sound like BORA-BORA
[Reply]
Pronounce Borak-borak with clear ‘K’ sound at the end regardless baku or otherwise. Bora has another meaning in bahasa – “angin kencang timur laut yang sejuk dan kering menuruni gunung di pantai timur adriatik”-Kamus Dewan Edisi 4.
[Reply]
Thank you all for confirming the pronunciation.
Those of you who did not participate in the recent Open Category theSun Hunt, you may be curious to know what this is all about. (I wasn’t there too, but I have the Q&A with me.)
Q13) With water all around it is a place for idle talk I hear.
A13) Pusat Kesihatan & Kecantikan Bora-Bora
As you know, Bora-Bora is the name of an island. It is therefore agreeable to the clue “with water all around”, because obviously there is (sea) water all around an island.
However, in this case, the setter had also provided a second clue, i.e. “it is a place for idle talk I hear”.
There is no requirement for a second clue in hunt questions, but it is totally up to the setter if he wants to be generous to the hunters. I suppose it is a matter of taste and style which in turn depends very much on the difficulty level of the question/hunt.
Nevertheless, I am an advocate of fair play. Whenever a second or even third clue is provided, they should also be accurate. Because the purpose of that second clue then is to confirm the answer for the first clue (assuming that the hunters have actually found the answer based on that first clue). I think it is unfair to give a second clue which is supposed to help/confirm, but yet does not really do that. Worse, that second clue confuses the hunters even further because it is wrong!
In this case, “idle talk” translates to BORAK-BORAK. I can accept that, but the pronunciation doesn’t sound like BORA-BORA the island. So instead of confirming the first clue, that second clue confuses the hunters.
It is sometimes possible to have no specific definition in a cryptic clue. Which means hunters will have to confirm the answer by combining both parts of the clue to confirm each other.
To give an idea of such clue, here is one from my question bank:
Q) Where do I begin to tell the beginning of this number?
A) Kedai Makan Love Story
A famous love story starring Ryan O’Neal and Ali MacGraw of which its main song “Love Story” (also referred to as “Where Do I Begin”) sung by Andy Williams.
Notice that the lyrics of the song (number) begins with “Where do I begin, to tell…”
And that is “the beginning of this number”, where “this” refers to the song, LOVE STORY (the title of that movie is also LOVE STORY).
So you see that both parts of the clue confirms each other. The first part tells the solver, if he realises it, the beginning portion of a song lyric. Second part of the clue tells the solver that we’re looking for the title of a song (“this” number). Both parts are important to arrive at the answer. And both parts must therefore be accurate. We can’t have any of these two parts defective.
So I say if the setter wants to be generous, then be generous by all means, but make sure it does end up as a generosity; not something that is only there to confuse and nothing else. If that is the case, then the clue is better off without that second part at all.
[Reply]