| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
daj95376
Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Posts: 3854
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 4:14 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| ronk wrote: | Not sure where I would have thought those examples were supposed to come from. While I have quite a few UR+SL patterns programmed, very few use Mike Barker's names. A fair amount of cross-referencing work would be required.
Perhaps I was thinking exemplars, but my "URs with hidden sets" file is almost empty. |
My solver dynamically resolves UR+SL patterns as they're encountered. So, I don't have a specific pattern name associated with a UR+SL elimination. I have to manually reconstruct the SL pattern(s) for each elimination that I review. The only exception is the identification of UR Types 1-6, for which I have a separate routine to identify each.
What's going through my head is the number of different patterns listed by Mike Barker that fall into the UR+SL category. It could be a lot of effort to categorize them by the SLs present.
The only time I would consider cross-referencing Mike Barker's naming convention is if I were to just use his puzzles from the "zoo" collection. They're already identified. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
