« Part II: Info: Cryptograms, Pictures, and Variables | Main | MARCH MADNESS III Call for Submissions »
Mad Scrambles by Bob Lodge Part I: Introduction
You will be asked to repeatedly expand, scramble, and shuffle a String (I'll write it throughout the contest that way for emphasis) of letters, until a directive appears, whose answer is the goal of this contest. Extended complicated directions must be followed with great care. Any error or omission could render the final result incomprehensible and meaningless. If any step doesn't jibe with the work so far, STOP, and find errors before further steps compound them. In this challenging gauntlet of many small steps, just one mistake may tumble the house of cards! Can you make it all the way?
Most of the Parts that follow are of three types.
The Scramble sections will alter the String, either by adding new words or letters, or by rearranging what is already there. Other sections may generate words or letters to be added, or alter words into non-words (perhaps still referred to as words) and still others make keys to insertion points, to tell where to add the new words. While some puzzles generating data may be worked independently, others may not, and all Scramble sequences that alter the String MUST be done in order. For instance, if you are to remove the 3rd letter, then later switch the 5th and 6th letters, those letters would have been the 6th and 7th letters before the 3rd letter was removed. Doing the two steps in the reverse order will produce a different result! So, throughout the contest, each step is performed on a word, list, or String as it results from any previous steps, thus the order they are done is of paramount importance.
Below is the beginning form of the String. It has 108 letters. You must guard it well and maintain it as you progress, adding and rearranging letters. It will remain a scramble of letters, despite changes, until the very last step, when a message will appear suddenly. However, as you progress, some occasional Checkpoints may help you to stay on track. Go back if they don't check. If you copy it to a document in a fixed width font such as Courier New, then you can line up columns for manipulation and counting.
TONCAFWUEWDETSASNLAFMYIUNSSPFEDATNNS-
WARFRENSRAHUNDFOEHRSMETNOIFMISEUNAFL- EOIFDOMBRNMDFHHBNSRNDDOBHIRAETMLWDTR
Comments
Well, shucks, I had used the formatting of ZIP Chess Challenge as a guide, which had allowed 52 characters per line in fixed width font, but this came out with a larger size and only 47 characters per line, thus the rather jagged appearance whenever a long word won't fit on the line, leaving a big gap. Sorry about that, but the words are all the same, and FWIW, a little larger!
I'll now check through the post and look for anything that might require an extra comment. Have fun!
Posted by: Bob Lodge | Jan 17, 2007 1:32:14 PM
Is there a doc or pdf of this contest downloadable?
Posted by: Jim Miller | Jan 17, 2007 8:49:34 PM
O never mind, now I see how to get the whole thing on one page. This site confuses me sometimes.
Posted by: Jim Miller | Jan 17, 2007 8:59:51 PM
Jim, there's a link to the Word doc at the very end, and highly recommended to use it, as the formatting is much clearer. The contest posted with a larger type size and blank lines compressed so it's a bit of a jumble compared to the look of the Word doc.
Posted by: Bob Lodge | Jan 17, 2007 9:24:09 PM
I think I've been able to fix it!
Posted by: JmSR | Jan 18, 2007 1:12:18 PM
All RI-I-GHT!! My MAN! Thank you thank you!! THAT'S the way it was supposed to look. A big tip of the hat from me to JonMichael!
Posted by: Bob Lodge | Jan 18, 2007 1:38:25 PM
A GENERAL HEADS UP! As you begin each new section, be sure to click on and read all comments posted so far for that section. It's easy to forget, but they may contain additional hints, clarifications, or corrections, developed in post-launch interactions.
Posted by: Bob Lodge | Jan 18, 2007 7:57:35 PM
Not much activity recently, but I'm aware of 3 or 4 people still presumably working on this. We're into the 20's in February so March Madness will be upon us fast! (Have you all been submitting MM items?) I'm still hoping to receive more entries for Mad Scrambles, and am open to suggestions how and when to wind it up, declare a deadline, announce winners, etc. I guess I'll start by asking if anyone is still pursuing a solution they hope to send to me. You may responed either here in the open or to me directly and privately.
Posted by: Bob Lodge | Feb 22, 2007 4:13:22 PM
How about ending on 3-5-7? I need closure.
Posted by: df | Mar 1, 2007 9:43:27 PM
Well, 3-5-7 does have a nice ring to it. I've rechecked the submissions, and perhaps everyone has finished that planned to? I'll check again at midnight (I'm in Pacific time, so that's 3am Eastern!) for any last entries. If you're really close but that's too soon, send me a ''give me another day'' request and I'll honor that. I hate to discourage anyone with a lot of time invested. But get it to me by midnight, my time, OK?
I currently have seven correct entries, two of which are revisions of earlier different answers.
I trust everyone reading this has donated a March Madness submission?
Posted by: Bob Lodge | Mar 5, 2007 2:24:23 PM
I'm polishing up my March Madness things as we speak and will send 'em out tonight (deadline's the 10th, I think).
Posted by: Mike | Mar 5, 2007 3:58:55 PM
I have been out of the UCDP loop for awhile. I am trying to reprise some of my favourite March Madness-type puzzles, with twists, for March 10th.
Posted by: Michael | Mar 6, 2007 10:10:53 AM
Results? Answers? Anxiously awaiting . . . .
Posted by: MartinD | Mar 6, 2007 4:55:00 PM
As I thought how to begin phrasing this, I suddenly realized how similar it is to Douglas Adams ''Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy'' in which the answer to the Great Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything is pondered for seven and a half million years by the computer Deep Thought, who finally comes up with the answer, which is 42!
The answer to Mad Scrambles is 43!
But I suppose you are interested in slightly more intermediate detail. :-)
Well, those who got it right obviously pretty much made their way through the labyrinth of challenges, so if your answer matches you can be pretty sure you did everything right. And actually, for the final scramble to come out readable at all, there was very little allowance for any errors along the way.
But I would like to hope there are more than those who submitted an entry who have an interest in seeing where and how they were prevented from reaching the final solution. So, over the next few days I will try to post a few notes at appropriate places along the way, under those sections' comments, and also entertain any specific questions anyone might have.
I consider all who made it to the end winners. I can't think of any way to distinguish them other than by how soon their entry was received, but there is no way to check when they STARTED, so one of the later entries may well have found the solution in a shorter actual elapsed time. But it is impressive to receive early solutions.
The contest was posted on January 17, as can be confirmed by checking the first comments in this section above. I was frankly flabbergasted to receive a correct solution only 5 days later, on January 22! Five other entrants took a more reasonable time, but still less than I might have anticipated, arriving between Jan 31 and Feb 4. The 7th entry arrived in late February. So, for well-earned bragging rights, the list is:
Jan 22 -- Brad Slavens
Jan 31 -- John Daly
Jan 31 -- Susy Ingraham
Feb 1 -- Mike Graczyk
Feb 4 -- David Freidenfeld
Feb 4 -- Martin Doublesin
Feb 28 -- Paula Stevens
Both Mike and Susy sent slightly earlier entries, proving they had deciphered the final question, but with incorrect answers. They weren't earlier than Brad's, though. Both found and corrected them within a short time. Susy, John still beat your earlier entry, by four minutes! Thank you, Paula, for persevering after a late start and eventually finding the path, and Brad, all I can say is ''Wow, how did you do it?'' That was a truly awesome feat!
It's now very late so I may not write much more tonight, but if not, I'll get to it tomorrow.
Posted by: Bob Lodge | Mar 7, 2007 3:34:29 AM
Ever since attempting to take a stab at "Common Factors" (I think I was in 8th grade then...no computer yet so I spent many an afternoon after school at the library with head immersed in research...also dusted off the family atlas then, too), I've been wishing for the day I could finally crack a Bob Lodge conundrum. And yes! Fifth or sixth time was a charm with this one, which was delightful as always. Thanks for the puzzling excitement.
Just out of random curiosity, did it ever get dizzying when you were creating the string (and from what I would guess, working backwards from the directive to jumble it all up)? I was so worried going along that one single letter would lead to my downfall, but everything managed to work OK in the end. The concept is a lot of fun and seems a bit similar to this one coding mechanism I saw before (think it was called the "Picket Fence Code") where a string of text was simply split into two halves and shuffled that way.
Posted by: Mike | Mar 7, 2007 1:45:19 PM
Ever since attempting to take a stab at "Common Factors" (I think I was in 8th grade then...no computer yet so I spent many an afternoon after school at the library with head immersed in research...also dusted off the family atlas then, too), I've been wishing for the day I could finally crack a Bob Lodge conundrum. And yes! Fifth or sixth time was a charm with this one, which was delightful as always. Thanks for the puzzling excitement.
Just out of random curiosity, did it ever get dizzying when you were creating the string (and from what I would guess, working backwards from the directive to jumble it all up)? I was so worried going along that one single letter would lead to my downfall, but everything managed to work OK in the end. The concept is a lot of fun and seems a bit similar to this one coding mechanism I saw before (think it was called the "Picket Fence Code") where a string of text was simply split into two halves and shuffled that way.
Posted by: Mike | Mar 7, 2007 1:45:24 PM
Hoo, boy! I shouldn't have been posting so late last night! I goofed and left out two names, who in fact were ahead of all but Brad on the list. Somehow I missed a section of emails when I was later converting the information to a document table. So, sorry, John and Susy, but your 2nd and 3rd places were really 4th and 5th! The corrected list is:
Jan 22 -- Brad Slavens
Jan 25 -- Alan Lemm
Jan 25 -- Steve Williams
Jan 31 -- John Daly
Jan 31 -- Susy Ingraham
Feb 1 -- Mike Graczyk
Feb 4 -- David Freidenfeld
Feb 4 -- Martin Doublesin
Feb 28 -- Paula Stevens
Actually, Alan sent a solution on the 23rd, alerting me to the fact I had not worded the final directive sufficiently to make the answer unique, prompting the additional discussion there. My sincere apologies to Alan and Steve, who are obviously in the top echelon of solvers. So, if I didn't leave out any others, we have NINE instead of seven. Cool!
Posted by: Bob Lodge | Mar 7, 2007 1:46:16 PM
Mike, you are correct, I construct a puzzle like this BACKWARDS, starting with the final grid, adjusting the wording until the total number of letters is a satisfactory composite with a few factoring possibilities. I have a few books on codes and ciphers and this grid scrambling was a common one in the days when all was done by hand on paper. I work on a Word document in Courier New, which is a fixed width font, so all the columns line up. Using Enter and Delete keys, it is easy to quickly manipulate long strings of letters, trying various shuffle combinations to see what results. The many words, partial or scrambled, that popped out were pure serendipity, although with a large sample I think you're always likely to get quite a few, and I then wrote clues for them, most of which were revised many times before their final form. It's also a lot of luck to stumble over marvelous coincidences within clues, allowing me to bring together seemingly unrelated elements. More backwards stuff, though--for example, I found the rectangles, THEN wrote the clues to generate the defining numbers. When I'm finished I always work through from the front, as a solver but knowing all the answers, to be sure all the mechanics are sound and lead the right way, and that I didn't drop that single letter that would cause it to implode! I really enjoy putting them together, and am grateful to you guys and to GAMES readers for showing interest in them, which is more than I can say for any of my family, most of whom generally throw up their hands and run the other way!
Posted by: Bob Lodge | Mar 7, 2007 3:04:40 PM
I also feel great satisfaction in cracking "a Bob Lodge" even if I did finish last. I found myself stuck two or three times in places where I simply mis-read or "missed the obvious". But now I am all warmed up for March Madness...
Posted by: Paula | Mar 7, 2007 3:22:27 PM
I think I sprained my top echelon while solving this one. 8th grade for "Common Factors", eh, Mike? My oldest son was turning eight then, I think. Well, nice to know someone will be keeping the world smart to support my pension in my dotage, which happened during Part IX, but that's another story.
I have to say kudos, Bob, for the contest as a whole, but also for all the checkpoints that never gave away anything, but told me when I was straying. Too many puzzles can leave you (well, me) with no hint as to where the problem is, that frustration replaces fun. Congrats to Brad et Al et Steve for the medal finishes, and to all of us, for finding that this activity is worth our time and energy: the world is Good. Bob is either Good or Evil, not sure yet.
Posted by: John | Mar 7, 2007 7:00:18 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.