View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Clement
Joined: 24 Apr 2006 Posts: 1111 Location: Dar es Salaam Tanzania
|
Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:51 pm Post subject: Jul 30 VH |
|
|
W-Wing 46 with strong link 4 in row 7 setting r5c7<>6 solves it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Marty R.
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 Posts: 5770 Location: Rochester, NY, USA
|
Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
I saw two standard VH moves.
XY-Wing (465); r9c3<>5
XYZ-Wing (256); r7c6<>6 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kuskey
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 Posts: 141 Location: Pembroke, NH
|
Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:02 am Post subject: Jul 30 VH |
|
|
Three more in addition to those already cited:
1. xy-wing 456 pivot r7c2 setting r9c4<>4.
2. w-wing 46 strong link on 6 in c2 setting r6c7<>4.
3. w-wing 34 strong link on 3 in c5 setting r4c1 and r6c9<>4. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dongrave
Joined: 06 Mar 2014 Posts: 568
|
Posted: Sat May 31, 2014 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've been going through the archive of very hard puzzles and somehow I solved this one using just the basics. I figured that I must have made a mistake and got lucky so I did it a second time - and I solved it again by just using the basics! Could one of you double-check this puzzle for me? What am I missing? If you want, I can provide the sequence of steps that I used (I saved them the second time that I did it). Thanks, Don. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Marty R.
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 Posts: 5770 Location: Rochester, NY, USA
|
Posted: Sat May 31, 2014 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Don, every once in a while a VH sneaks through that can be solved with basics. This is probably not one of them. Whenever I solve one with basics and every other poster shows advanced moves, I get out the eraser and do it again. I've been burned and embarrassed by this issue a couple of times. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dongrave
Joined: 06 Mar 2014 Posts: 568
|
Posted: Sat May 31, 2014 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Marty! That's exactly what I'll do from now on! When I attempted to solve this for the 2nd time, I wrote a sequence number in each square (I thought) so I could easily recap how it was done. Now I notice that two squares are missing sequence numbers and I'm no longer able to deduce one of the next sequenced squares. I must have made the same stupid mistake twice! Sorry about that. I'll be more careful in the future! Thanks, Don. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|