| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
daj95376
Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Posts: 3854
|
 Posted: Thu May 05, 2011 5:14 pm Post subject: Puzzle 11/05/05: ~ Advanced (BBDB?) |
 |
|
| Code: | +-----------------------+
| . . 9 | . 7 . | . 6 2 |
| . 7 . | . . . | 3 . . |
| 4 . . | 6 . . | 7 5 8 |
|-------+-------+-------|
| . . 3 | 2 . . | . . . |
| 6 . . | . . . | . 7 . |
| . . . | . . . | 2 . 6 |
|-------+-------+-------|
| . 3 4 | . . 9 | . 2 . |
| 9 . 7 | . 2 . | 5 8 3 |
| 2 . 8 | . . 7 | . 9 1 |
+-----------------------+
|
Play this puzzle online at the Daily Sudoku site |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
peterj
Joined: 26 Mar 2010
Posts: 974
Location: London, UK
|
| Posted: Sat May 07, 2011 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Two steps with an interesting "transport" on a kite...
| Quote: | kite(5) (5)r9c5=r9c2 - r7c1=r2c1 {pause} - (5=8)r1c2 - (8=4)r4c2 - (4=5)r4c9 ; r2c5<>5, r4c5<>5
kite(8) c2, r6 ; r1c6<>8 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marty R.
Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 5770
Location: Rochester, NY, USA
|
| Posted: Sun May 08, 2011 4:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Type 3 UR (12), using pseudo cell 45
W-Wing (58); r1c6<>5
XY-Chain; r2c5<>8 + transport; r1c2<>8 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tlanglet
Joined: 17 Oct 2007
Posts: 2468
Location: Northern California Foothills
|
| Posted: Sun May 08, 2011 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I had some free time this morning and spent it working on this puzzle. I found many, many two step solutions but they all seemed to be using similar paths. Like Peter recently posted, I became determined to find something OTT to find a better solution: in this case, an almost skyscraper.
almost skyscraper (8)r1c26 with pincers r4c2|r6c6 and fin (8)r4c6; r6c1<>8=1
If skyscraper is true: r6c1<>8=1
If fin is true: (8)r4c6-(6)r4c6=r8c6-(6=1)r8c2-r7c1=(1-8)r6c1;
Ted  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daj95376
Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Posts: 3854
|
| Posted: Sun May 08, 2011 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm glad this puzzle generated responses more interesting than the (default) solution provided by my solver. I just now ran my solver to see what else it could find.
From my solver! There are two URs with a cell in common: <12> UR r35c23 and <15> UR r56c36. In addition, each UR has an internal strong link based on two non-UR candidates. Finally, each strong link involves the common cell.
| Code: | (8=4)r4c2 - r5c2 =UR= (5-2)r5c3 =UR= (8)r6c6 => r4c56,r6c1<>8
+-----------------------------------------------------+
| 3 58 9 | 458 7 458 | 1 6 2 |
| 58 7 6 | 158 158 2 | 3 4 9 |
| 4 *12 *12 | 6 9 3 | 7 5 8 |
|-----------------+-----------------+-----------------|
| 7 48 3 | 2 56-8 56-8 | 9 1 45 |
| 6 *124 *125# | 9 3 15# | 8 7 45 |
| 1-8 9 15# | 7 4 158# | 2 3 6 |
|-----------------+-----------------+-----------------|
| 15 3 4 | 158 158 9 | 6 2 7 |
| 9 16 7 | 14 2 46 | 5 8 3 |
| 2 56 8 | 3 56 7 | 4 9 1 |
+-----------------------------------------------------+
# 38 eliminations remain
|
Ironically, this solution uses the same candidate and pincers as Ted's. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
peterj
Joined: 26 Mar 2010
Posts: 974
Location: London, UK
|
| Posted: Sun May 08, 2011 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| daj95376 wrote: | | From my solver! |
Danny, that's a really nice move! And impressed that your solver is now able to find such things... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daj95376
Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Posts: 3854
|
| Posted: Sun May 08, 2011 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| peterj wrote: | | Danny, that's a really nice move! And impressed that your solver is now able to find such things... |
Thanks Peter !!!
My solver only has a "basic" internal UR SIS capability right now. I'm debating how far I want to go with internal/external SIS. If I add more candidates to the UR logic, then it can easily become Kraken cell/unit logic. Something I've tried to avoid because I never know what's a "reasonable" distance to follow false streams.
I really wish that I could add ALS logic to my chain() routine. Right now, that appears to be a nightmare to incorporate, even though my data structures might support it.
Regards, Danny |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marty R.
Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 5770
Location: Rochester, NY, USA
|
| Posted: Sun May 08, 2011 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| For those of us (maybe just me) who don't see those big pictures, I see a Hidden UR (15) with strong link on 5 in r6, setting r5c3<>5, thus reducing the 12 UR to a Type 1. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ronk
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 398
|
| Posted: Sun May 08, 2011 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| daj95376 wrote: | | My solver only has a "basic" internal UR SIS capability right now. I'm debating how far I want to go with internal/external SIS. If I add more candidates to the UR logic, then it can easily become Kraken cell/unit logic. Something I've tried to avoid because I never know what's a "reasonable" distance to follow false streams. |
I believe every exclusion that can be done with UR "mixed" SIS can also be done with "100% internal" SIS and "100% external" SIS. So the issue would be relative complexity of the three classes, not their exclusion possibilities. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
peterj
Joined: 26 Mar 2010
Posts: 974
Location: London, UK
|
| Posted: Sun May 08, 2011 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ronk wrote: | | I believe every exclusion that can be done with UR "mixed" SIS can also be done with "100% internal" SIS and "100% external" SIS. So the issue would be relative complexity of the three classes, not their exclusion possibilities. |
That is certainly my experience. However, one of the routes (internal/external) is likely to involve ALS logic to make the same eliminations - which I understand Danny's solver doesn't support (yet!).
I think most human solvers start with internal SIS as this seems easier to understand (only evidence for this is propensity to use internal SIS on posts in this and other forums) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daj95376
Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Posts: 3854
|
| Posted: Sun May 08, 2011 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ron, here's an example UR where at least one of four premises: r2c4=3, r2c6=4, r8c4=5, and/or r8c6=6 is true.
Potentially, only one premise might be true. This leads to a forcing chain scenario where three of the four streams are based on a false premise. Since a stream based on a false premise may never result in a true condition that's useful, I could end up with numerous long streams that are useless. Since each premise might have several streams possible, the number of permutations to check all four premises could result in an ugly search with little prospect of finding a common elimination.
Obviously, we're no longer dealing with AICs. Thus, I'm staying clear of a UR scenario involving more than two internal, non-UR values. I may reconsider it should I decide to add forcing networks more complicated than a SIN.
| Code: | +-----------------------------------------------+
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
| . . . | 123 . 124 | . . . |
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
|---------------+---------------+---------------|
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
|---------------+---------------+---------------|
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
| . . . | 125 . 126 | . . . |
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
+-----------------------------------------------+
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ronk
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 398
|
| Posted: Mon May 09, 2011 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| daj95376 wrote: | | Obviously, we're no longer dealing with AICs. Thus, I'm staying clear of a UR scenario involving more than two internal, non-UR values. |
I can understand that. Perhaps the general approach should be 1) identify an AUR, 2) find the minimal strong-inference-sets for it using internal and/or external DP busters, and then 3) search for a useful chain using a minimal SIS. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daj95376
Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Posts: 3854
|
| Posted: Mon May 09, 2011 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ronk wrote: | I can understand that. Perhaps the general approach should be 1) identify an AUR, 2) find the minimal strong-inference-sets for it using internal and/or external DP busters, and then 3) search for a useful chain using a minimal SIS.
|
Right now, my solver has the following UR capability:
*) reduced UR-values detection
*) dedicated routines for UR types 1-6
*) general routine for URs using strong links on the UR values
*) extension to general routine called "+ Naked_Single"
*) extension to general routine called "prevented" -- for UR+3k
*) addition of (two-value) internal UR strong link to chain routine
*) addition of UR detection as a contradiction to (network) SIN routine
What's glaringly missing is utilizing any ALS structures.
Note: "reduced UR-values" occurs when one (or both) of the UR values aren't present in all four UR cells.
| Code: | worst-case example of reduced candidate detection -- 4x DPs possible
+-----------------------------------+
| . 12 . | . 34 . | . . . |
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
| . 34 . | . 12 . | . . . |
|-----------+-----------+-----------|
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
|-----------+-----------+-----------|
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
+-----------------------------------+
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
