| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
keith
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 3355
Location: near Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 7:06 am Post subject: Free Press Jan 14, 2011 |
 |
|
Still working ...
| Code: | Puzzle: FP011411
+-------+-------+-------+
| . 5 . | 4 . . | 2 7 . |
| . 4 8 | 2 . . | 3 . 1 |
| . . . | . 9 . | . 8 . |
+-------+-------+-------+
| . . . | . . . | 7 . . |
| 8 7 . | . . . | . 3 6 |
| . . 9 | . . . | . . . |
+-------+-------+-------+
| . 1 . | . 8 . | . . . |
| 2 . . | . . 5 | 4 6 . |
| . . 7 | . . 6 | . 1 . |
+-------+-------+-------+
|
Play this puzzle online at the Daily Sudoku site
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
peterj
Joined: 26 Mar 2010
Posts: 974
Location: London, UK
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Less obvious path...
| Quote: | | BUG-Lite(268)r46c249[(5)r4c9=r6c9] ; r5c7<>5 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keith
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 3355
Location: near Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The basics were interesting. After basics:
| Code: | +----------------+----------------+----------------+
| 16 5 16 | 4 3 8 | 2 7 9 |
| 9 4 8 | 2 6 7 | 3 5 1 |
| 7 3 2 | 5 9 1 | 6 8 4 |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| 1345 26 145 | 68 45 349 | 7 249 258 |
| 8 7 45 | 1 245 249 | 59 3 6 |
| 345 26 9 | 68 7 34 | 1 24 258 |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| 456 1 456 | 7 8 24 | 59 29 3 |
| 2 8 3 | 9 1 5 | 4 6 7 |
| 45 9 7 | 3 24 6 | 8 1 25 |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+ |
| Quote: | | I then used four XY-wings. |
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marty R.
Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 5770
Location: Rochester, NY, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Same as Peter, but I would have worded it differently. To break up the potential 26-68-28 DP either r4c9 or r6c9 must be =5. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daj95376
Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Posts: 3854
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Marty R. wrote: | Same as Peter, but I would have worded it differently.
To break up the potential 26-68-28 DP either r4c9 or r6c9 must be =5. |
Yes, but you failed to draw a conclusion from your or condition.
Peter went on to make the conclusion r5c7<>5 ... but it would have been more accurate if he'd written r5c7,r9c9<>5. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
peterj
Joined: 26 Mar 2010
Posts: 974
Location: London, UK
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| daj95376 wrote: | | Marty R. wrote: | Same as Peter, but I would have worded it differently.
To break up the potential 26-68-28 DP either r4c9 or r6c9 must be =5. |
Yes, but you failed to draw a conclusion from your or condition.
Peter went on to make the conclusion r5c7<>5 ... but it would have been more accurate if he'd written r5c7,r9c9<>5. |
Marty, I can see my description was a little terse, sorry - though I think it said everything that you said!
Danny, thanks for pointing out the other elimination. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keith
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 3355
Location: near Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The explanations of the DP elimination were clear to me.
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cgordon
Joined: 04 May 2007
Posts: 769
Location: ontario, canada
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| May I join you? I agree the basics were interesting. I used regular techniques - an x wing on 5 - an xyz wing 459 - and an ER on 4. Maybe I didn't need them all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
