View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
nataraj
Joined: 03 Aug 2007 Posts: 1048 Location: near Vienna, Austria
|
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:42 pm Post subject: many ways to crack this egg |
|
|
In today's Vanheugen "fiendish" http://www.playr.co.uk/sudoku/index.php?class=5
Code: | +-----------+-----------+-----------+
| . 9 . | 1 . 2 | . . . |
| . 2 . | . 4 6 | 9 3 1 |
| . 4 . | . 5 . | . . . |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 9 6 . | . 2 . | . . 7 |
| . 5 2 | 3 . 7 | 8 9 . |
| 7 . . | . 9 . | . 4 3 |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| . . . | . 7 . | . 6 . |
| 2 7 9 | 5 6 . | . 8 . |
| . . . | 2 . 4 | . 1 . |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+ |
it is almost embarrassing how quickly one gets to the point:
Code: |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| 368 9 68 | 1 38 2 | 4 7 5 |
| 58 2 578 | 78 4 6 | 9 3 1 |
| 13 4 17 | 79 5 39 | 6 2 8 |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| 9 6 3 | 4 2 8 | 1 5 7 |
| 4 5 2 | 3 1 7 | 8 9 6 |
| 7 18 18 | 6 9 5 | 2 4 3 |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| 18 138 4 | 89 7 39 | 5 6 2 |
| 2 7 9 | 5 6 1 | 3 8 4 |
| 56 38 56 | 2 38 4 | 7 1 9 |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
|
Plenty of ways to go from here:
a) coloring:
to remove 8 from r2c3 use this chain: -r2c4=r1c5-r9c5=r9c2-r6c2=r6c3-
(but still needs xy wing later on)
b) xy-wings:
pivot r1c3 removes 5 from the same cell r2c3 and from r9c1
pivot r2c1 removes 6 from r9c3 and r1c1
c) w-wings:
r6c2/r7c1 (by way of r6c3,r3c3,r3c4,r7c4)
r1c5/r9c2 (r2c4,r3c4,r3c6,r3c1,r7c1)
more? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
storm_norm
Joined: 18 Oct 2007 Posts: 1741
|
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
how about xy-chain:
r7c6=9, r7c4=8, r7c1=1, r3c1=3, r3c6<>3 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nataraj
Joined: 03 Aug 2007 Posts: 1048 Location: near Vienna, Austria
|
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
storm_norm wrote: | how about xy-chain:
|
True. I know, I know. Tons of xy-chains. Yuck.
No, I take it back. Sorry for the language. Just spent half an hour wading in chains.
They're great. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nataraj
Joined: 03 Aug 2007 Posts: 1048 Location: near Vienna, Austria
|
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Isn't that a BUG+3 situation, too?
r1c1=8 OR r2c3=8 OR r7c2=8 ?
either way, r2c1<>8, the resulting BUG+1 solves it with r7c2=8 .
Last edited by nataraj on Thu Nov 29, 2007 5:28 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
storm_norm
Joined: 18 Oct 2007 Posts: 1741
|
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
well I saw, 3,9 in column 6, and some other 3's and 9's so I went with it. yuck is right. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
keith
Joined: 19 Sep 2005 Posts: 3355 Location: near Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
nataraj wrote: | Isn't that a BUG+3 situation, too?
r1c1=8 OR r2c3=8 OR r7c2=8 ?
either way, r2c1<>8, the resulting BUG+1 solves it with r7c2=8 . |
As I see it, the BUG+3 means R1C3 <>8, which leads to a remote naked pair <38> which solves the puzzle.
Keith |
|
Back to top |
|
|
re'born
Joined: 28 Oct 2007 Posts: 80
|
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:30 pm Post subject: Re: many ways to crack this egg |
|
|
nataraj wrote: |
Plenty of ways to go from here:
a) coloring:
to remove 8 from r2c3 use this chain: -r2c4=r1c5-r9c5=r9c2-r6c2=r6c3-
(but still needs xy wing later on)
|
Start 3D-multicoloring from say r1c5. You will only need two colors and you quickly find a wealth of deductions. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ravel
Joined: 21 Apr 2006 Posts: 536
|
Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Code: | +--------------------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
|#368 9 #68 | 1 38 2 | 4 7 5 |
|#58 2 #578 | 78 4 6 | 9 3 1 |
| 13 4 17 | 79 5 39 | 6 2 8 |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| 9 6 3 | 4 2 8 | 1 5 7 |
| 4 5 2 | 3 1 7 | 8 9 6 |
| 7 18 18 | 6 9 5 | 2 4 3 |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| 18 138 4 | 89 7 39 | 5 6 2 |
| 2 7 9 | 5 6 1 | 3 8 4 |
|#56 38 #56 | 2 38 4 | 7 1 9 |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| Alternatively to the BUG+3 you can use this deadly pattern (68,58,56). Because of the strong links for 6 in row 1 and 5 in r2 it eliminates 8 from r1c3 and r2c1, 6 from r1c1 and r9c3, and 5 from r2c3 and r9c1.
The BUG+1 finishes it then. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
re'born
Joined: 28 Oct 2007 Posts: 80
|
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 9:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
ravel wrote: | Code: | +--------------------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
|#368 9 #68 | 1 38 2 | 4 7 5 |
|#58 2 #578 | 78 4 6 | 9 3 1 |
| 13 4 17 | 79 5 39 | 6 2 8 |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| 9 6 3 | 4 2 8 | 1 5 7 |
| 4 5 2 | 3 1 7 | 8 9 6 |
| 7 18 18 | 6 9 5 | 2 4 3 |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| 18 138 4 | 89 7 39 | 5 6 2 |
| 2 7 9 | 5 6 1 | 3 8 4 |
|#56 38 #56 | 2 38 4 | 7 1 9 |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| Alternatively to the BUG+3 you can use this deadly pattern (68,58,56). Because of the strong links for 6 in row 1 and 5 in r2 it eliminates 8 from r1c3 and r2c1, 6 from r1c1 and r9c3, and 5 from r2c3 and r9c1.
The BUG+1 finishes it then. |
I'm not satisfied with the deadly pattern. The rule of thumb ronk taught me for deciding whether something is a deadly pattern is that each candidate in the pattern should occur twice in every row, column and block. In this case 8 occurs 4 times in the pattern in block 1 and so I would think it would not be a deadly pattern. Thoughts? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
keith
Joined: 19 Sep 2005 Posts: 3355 Location: near Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
re'born wrote: | ravel wrote: | Code: | +--------------------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
|#368 9 #68 | 1 38 2 | 4 7 5 |
|#58 2 #578 | 78 4 6 | 9 3 1 |
| 13 4 17 | 79 5 39 | 6 2 8 |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| 9 6 3 | 4 2 8 | 1 5 7 |
| 4 5 2 | 3 1 7 | 8 9 6 |
| 7 18 18 | 6 9 5 | 2 4 3 |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| 18 138 4 | 89 7 39 | 5 6 2 |
| 2 7 9 | 5 6 1 | 3 8 4 |
|#56 38 #56 | 2 38 4 | 7 1 9 |
+--------------------------+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| Alternatively to the BUG+3 you can use this deadly pattern (68,58,56). Because of the strong links for 6 in row 1 and 5 in r2 it eliminates 8 from r1c3 and r2c1, 6 from r1c1 and r9c3, and 5 from r2c3 and r9c1.
The BUG+1 finishes it then. |
I'm not satisfied with the deadly pattern. The rule of thumb ronk taught me for deciding whether something is a deadly pattern is that each candidate in the pattern should occur twice in every row, column and block. In this case 8 occurs 4 times in the pattern in block 1 and so I would think it would not be a deadly pattern. Thoughts? |
Well, the pattern that ravel is avoiding is this:
Code: | +------------+
| 68 . 68 |
| 58 . 58 |
| . . . |
+------------+
| . . . |
| . . . |
| . . . |
+------------+
| . . . |
| . . . |
| 56 . 56 |
+------------+ |
which is clearly not a valid pattern. But, I think ravel's logic is correct. He is avoiding an invalid solution (pattern), albeit not one that has multiple solutions The more usual deadly pattern would be like this:
Code: | +------------+
| 68 . 68 |
| . . . |
| . . . |
+------------+
| . . . |
| 58 . 58 |
| . . . |
+------------+
| . . . |
| . . . |
| 56 . 56 |
+------------+ |
Keith |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ravel
Joined: 21 Apr 2006 Posts: 536
|
Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
re'born wrote: | I'm not satisfied with the deadly pattern. The rule of thumb ronk taught me for deciding whether something is a deadly pattern is that each candidate in the pattern should occur twice in every row, column and block. In this case 8 occurs 4 times in the pattern in block 1 and so I would think it would not be a deadly pattern. Thoughts? | Ah, thanks, of course you are right. This pattern in one box definitely is impossible.
Code: | +--------------------------+
| 68 . 68 |
| 58 . 58 |
-----
|
I deleted the other post, where i made the same mistake, but the eliminations were not correct.
PS:
This is a deadly pattern with 3 digits in a box:
Code: | | abc abc abc |
| . . . |
| . . . |
--------------
| abc abc abc |
| . . . |
| . . . | |
|
|
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
|