Feb 272006
Hey, top crossword solvers: Why not compete? Over on the New York Times Crossword Forum, Henry Hook says that the inspiration for his most recent puzzles was, as always, a “shortage of cash.” Here’s my question: Why doesn’t he compete in the American Crossword Puzzle Tournament? Or David Rosen, or even Stanley Newman… why do these top solvers bow out of the competition? Maybe it wasn’t worth it once, when the prize money was kinda low, but now the top prize is $4,000, and that’s a pretty nice chunk of change for a weekend’s work. Sure, it’s one thing if you’ve been asked to contribute a puzzle. But assuming that is not the case, why do these folks prefer to judge instead of taking a shot at a fairly substantial prize?
I’m not positive, but I believe there may be an understood Stamford rule to the effect of “once you’ve retired, you can’t unretire”. It probably looks funny if you compete one year, judge one year, compete one year. I think I’m one of only a few people to transition from being a Stamford judge to being a Stamford contestant, rather than the other way around.
In any event, there are plenty of reasons to want to stop solving. In David’s case, for example, my understanding is that the pressure of being expected to win every year (he won 4 out of 5 in a row, finishing second the one time he lost) was getting to be too much.
There may be peer pressure to stay out of it once you become a judge, but both you and Peter Gordon have jumped back and forth over the velvet ropes, and two examples (at least) is enough evidence to reasonably state that there’s no hard-and-fast rule. And if there is, there shouldn’t be. The point of the competition is to determine the best crossword solver in America. Anybody who might well lay claim to that title should have a shot at it, in my view.
There’s also an understood rule that if you’ve ever authored a puzzle in the tournament that you don’t become a contestant after that. I don’t recall if either of them ever constructed a puzzle. (I’m almost certain Stan never did.)
But Trip has constructed tournament puzzles, and so has Peter, and they both now compete, and that seems perfectly fine to me. Hey, if the top solvers want to sit out, as Trip implies is the case for David Rosen, then that’s fine. More opportunity for me to claw my to way to 99th place! But it seems awfully silly to force the potentially top contenders to stand aside.
Not, I grant you, that any of them seem to be complaining…
Well, it’s particularly interesting re Henry, since I believe someone (I won’t say who, but he frequents this blog and can make himself known if he pleases) told me a few years ago that he thought that if everyone in their prime competed against each other in a Stamford final, Henry would win and it wouldn’t even be close. Who knows if that’s (still) true, and who knows who’ll make an error and not make the finals, but… well, I think it’s interesting since I like watching the A finals. (Hopefully this year I won’t get to watch the C finals, if you know what I mean)
Stan made puzzles all but one year in Tournaments 13 through 19, at least, and I’m pretty sure he constructed more recently, but I don’t have that book at hand.
Maybe Will should host a Tournament of Champions (a la Jeopardy!). Or maybe to really gin up the prize, something like the World Series of Poker, with a buy-in, and winner take all.
Right. In each case we’re talking about one jump. David and Stan, for example, have both competed and then become judges/constructors for the tournament; Peter and I, for example, started as judges/competitors and then jumped to the competitive side.
I don’t think there are any examples of anyone jumping twice (judge to constructor and then back to judge, though that will happen when I eventually retire — or, more significantly, competitor to judge and back to competitor, which is what I think may be prohibited).
Well then maybe my source was fulla beans. :) But I do agree that HH would wipe the floor with everyone else.
Which begs the question, if he kept winning it for like 10 consecutive years, would it still be fun for the other top people?
While we’re on the subject of prize money, let me just throw in one of my pet peeves, which is that I think the prizes are too low for everything besides first place–especially since the champion’s prize went up so much a few years ago, leaving all the other prizes in the dust. And why not give everyone in the top 10 some cash? Making the top 10 is quite an accomplishment, what with hundreds of solvers competing.
I’m all for prizes for the top 10 (if only because that’s the only prize level I’m likely to ever crack again).
Yes, I want to get into the top 10, and dammit, some money would be nice.