QC League Table of difficulty by Setter…

Author   jackktPosted on Categories Announcement

Back by popular demand  (i.e. one person asked for it yesterday) I bring you an update of my analysis of QC difficulty levels by Setter. It’s based entirely on my own solving times and whether or not I achieved my target 10 minutes on any particular day. It’s intended as a bit of fun and I am not suggesting for a moment that it would stand up to an objective statistical examination other than of my own failure rate, but when I published previously (in July 2016 and September 2017) it proved to be of some interest.

Setters are once again rated 1 – 10 (easiest to hardest) despite a protest last time that it would make more sense the other way round. I have excluded a handful of setters who gave us fewer than 4 puzzles in the current period (1 September 2017 to 30 Jun 2019).

14 comments on “QC League Table of difficulty by Setter…”

  1. We need to get Starstruck on this – the QUIDDITCH (Quick Division Index of Times Cryptic Hardness!)
    1. You don’t explain how you arrive at your number, jackkt but it is interesting you get such a big variation in ratings… 2.2 to 8.7. I don’t keep track of which setter each puzzle is by, so I can’t add my own ranking. But following the suggestion of the esteemed Verlaine, it is quite straightforward to follow our chief data wrangler Starstruck’s method to calculate your NITCH for each puzzle. For each day, divide your solving time by your average solving time for the previous 6 months and multiply by 100 to get your score for the day. I track my 6 month average to calculate my NITCH for the 15×15 to compare with the SNITCH and the same for the QC so that for today, for example, my time for the Oink’s QC equates to a QNITCH for me of 94… I.e. just faster than average.
      1. Actual solving times are not involved other than being within my 10-minute target or without it. The figure is my failure rate for each setter expressed as a percentage and divided by 10. As mentioned in my intro it’s only intended as a bit of fun, though there may be an element of truth lurking somewhere in the results.
  2. Thanks Jackkt. Always interesting to see how others find the setters. Going purely on my gut instinct, as I have no stats to back it up I roughly agree with the top of your table but would move Joker and Hurley a bit higher.
    I find the wildcards to be Teazel and Wurm who for me are either very straightforward or very difficult with not much in between.
    Seeing Flamande’s name there reminds me how much I enjoyed his puzzles.
  3. I’ve kept my own records over the same period…my “rating” here is based purely on average time to complete: 10 = 10 minutes; 0 = 5 minutes. Some of my ratings for newer setters are probably skewed by the fact that my average solving time has gone from 12 minutes in September 2017 to 5:30 last month…

    Des 9.97
    Oran 8.07
    Hawthorn 7.83
    Wurm 7.30
    Alconiere 6.00
    Felix 5.80
    Howzat 5.60
    Flamande 5.30
    Teazel 5.20
    Tracy 4.30
    Marty 4.30
    Grumpy 4.30
    Izetti 4.17
    Rongo 4.00
    Orpheus 3.97
    Pedro 3.80
    Hurley 3.70
    Corelli 3.13
    Joker 3.03
    Mara 2.87
    Breadman 0.83
    Oink 0.73

    1. Thanks for this, Lou. Leaving aside Alconiere who didn’t feature in my analysis and then numbering the setters 1-21 in each of our lists it’s interesting that two of them correspond exactly (Hurley and Oink) and another eight are very near to doing so (Oran, Hawthorn, Felix, Howzat, Teazel, Tracy, Marty and Joker). Very wide discrepencies on some of the others, though only to be expected of course.

      Edited at 2019-07-02 11:03 pm (UTC)

  4. I have often been struck by the number of solvers who keep track of the different setters, and can discriminate among them. Partly because the print is so small, partly no doubt because the 15x15s are anonymous, I’ve never noticed who’s set the puzzle. If asked to name them, I could probably come up with Izetti; maybe, given time, 3 or 4 more, although I recognize most of the names on your list.
    1. TBH I don’t pay much attention either when I’m actually solving but I keep a note of my solving times so I add the setter’s name too and this comes in useful when others discuss the subject. My preference is for anonymous puzzles and I hope the day never dawns when the 15×15 goes the same way.
      1. I rather wish the setter’s identity could be published with the solution, not the puzzle.
  5. Thanks for this, Jackkt. There is more than just a hint in the table that familiarity with each setter’s style improves solving times, which is only to be expected. Anyway, that’s my excuse for struggling when I occasionally try crosswords in other papers. Invariant
  6. As a solver, I was musing on how the setters see themselves or each other with regard to difficulty. Has this league table confirmed their expectation?
    I am in awe of setters both for their gift, their solitary existence and their inevitable criticism from a percentage of the population.
  7. I see I’m the runt of the litter 🙂

    I’ll have to up my game.

    Oink

    2. I think it shows you are the best tutor for novice puzzlers. That you can do that and be admired by experienced solvers for the entertainment you give us all, makes you top hog, I think!

Comments are closed.