CCCWC February competition voters’ comments on Clue no. 4

CCCWC February competition voters’ comments

Clue no. 4: Brandeis's last pawn captures the final pieces of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Back to competitor’s clues | All the comments | Other competitions

A clue to SHERLOCK.
4 comments refer to this clue (from 4 competitors, 0 others)
Move your mouse pointer over any bold clue number to see the clue.

Here is the text

Comments on the clue

1.	Nicely put together clue. One of the best this month
2.	The chess reference doesn't fit the names, but the definition is well disguised
3.	Bit of an essay with gimme definition

Comments on the competition
1.
5 points 5 The definition is a bit of a stretch, but the surface is excellent and amusing and the s.i. (if I put on one side my personal aversion to the “bit of” convention) so neat that the clue deserves top marks 3 points each: 44 I don’t think that this clue would get past Azed as a valid composite anagram, since there is no “break” between the two halves (as he insists is required), but this is not one of Azed’s competitions and the clue is admirably economical and neat. 57 neat and a genuine &lit 2 points each: 24 the wording (“sinister criminal outbreak”) is slightly artificial, but this not a bad &lit 29 the subsidiary indication aspect of this &lit is very well done, the definition aspect slightly forced. Prox. ac. 4 This is cleverly constructed, introducing Holmes without making it too obvious that it is the definition. The connection between Brandeis and OWH, as fellow liberal members of the Supreme Court, is clear and it seems that OWH was keen on chess, but the surface is weakened by the facts that there does not seem to be any evidence that Brandeis had much interest in the game and that it is somewhat unlikely that a pawn would ever be in a position to take an opponent’s “final pieces”, whatever that might mean exactly. 14 A clever idea neatly executed, but “house” = “shack” is hardly fair, I feel. 26 The topical surface is rather spoiled by the artificiality of the phrase “equine racing’s loss”. 37 If the criterion for a clue’s being &lit is (as I believe to be the case) that every word must make a meaningful contribution to both the definition and the subsidiary indication, then this clue is no &lit, since more than half the words make no contribution to the s.i. at all. What’s more, I don’t think that either “flamboyant” or “slick” is a very accurate epithet for Sherlock Holmes.

Comments on the competition

5 points

5 The definition is a bit of a stretch, but the surface is excellent and amusing and the s.i. (if I put on one side my personal aversion to the “bit of” convention) so neat that the clue deserves top marks

3 points each:

44 I don’t think that this clue would get past Azed as a valid composite anagram, since there is no “break” between the two halves (as he insists is required), but this is not one of Azed’s competitions and the clue is admirably economical and neat.

57 neat and a genuine &lit

2 points each:

24 the wording (“sinister criminal outbreak”) is slightly artificial, but this not a bad &lit

29 the subsidiary indication aspect of this &lit is very well done, the definition aspect slightly forced.

Prox. ac.

4 This is cleverly constructed, introducing Holmes without making it too obvious that it is the definition. The connection between Brandeis and OWH, as fellow liberal members of the Supreme Court, is clear and it seems that OWH was keen on chess, but the surface is weakened by the facts that there does not seem to be any evidence that Brandeis had much interest in the game and that it is somewhat unlikely that a pawn would ever be in a position to take an opponent’s “final pieces”, whatever that might mean exactly.

14 A clever idea neatly executed, but “house” = “shack” is hardly fair, I feel.

26 The topical surface is rather spoiled by the artificiality of the phrase “equine racing’s loss”.

37 If the criterion for a clue’s being &lit is (as I believe to be the case) that every word must make a meaningful contribution to both the definition and the subsidiary indication, then this clue is no &lit, since more than half the words make no contribution to the s.i. at all. What’s more, I don’t think that either “flamboyant” or “slick” is a very accurate epithet for Sherlock Holmes.

CCCWC February competition voters’ comments Clue no. 4: Brandeis's last pawn captures the final pieces of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.

CCCWC February competition voters’ comments

Clue no. 4: Brandeis's last pawn captures the final pieces of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.