View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
nataraj
Joined: 03 Aug 2007 Posts: 1048 Location: near Vienna, Austria
|
Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Marty R. wrote: | It's fun to do pincer coloring since it's relatively new to me. |
Same here. I really like this approach (and it's fairly new to me as well).
I guess I like it because it offers a small amount of order in chaos - those xy-chains are a pain to look for and with those xy-wings (even when "useless" at first glance) one at least has a starting point. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cgordon
Joined: 04 May 2007 Posts: 769 Location: ontario, canada
|
Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote]XZ-XY-YZ=YZ=YZ[quote]
The xy-wing I used was the <58> pivot and <35> <38> pincers shown below. I see the XZ-XY-YZ=YZ=YZ sequence here - but isn't the =YZ bit (removing the <3> in R7) just the expected outcome of the wing technique. And once this <3> is removed, there's simply a naked <8> in Box 3.
I guess what I'm saying is: does the "=YZ=YZ" need a special name (pincer colouring) -when it's really just back to basics - or as we used to say in the UK - "it all comes out in the wash".
Code: |
+-------+-------+-------+
| . . .| . . . | . 38. |
| . . .| . . . | . . . |
| . 35 .| . . . | . . . |
+-------+-------+-------+
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
+-------+-------+-------+
| . . .| . . . | . 38. |
| . . .| . . . | . . . |
| . 58 .| . . . |38 . . |
+-------+-------+-------+
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
keith
Joined: 19 Sep 2005 Posts: 3355 Location: near Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="cgordon"][quote]XZ-XY-YZ=YZ=YZ Quote: |
The xy-wing I used was the <58> pivot and <35> <38> pincers shown below. I see the XZ-XY-YZ=YZ=YZ sequence here - but isn't the =YZ bit (removing the <3> in R7) just the expected outcome of the wing technique. And once this <3> is removed, there's simply a naked <8> in Box 3.
I guess what I'm saying is: does the "=YZ=YZ" need a special name (pincer colouring) -when it's really just back to basics - or as we used to say in the UK - "it all comes out in the wash".
Code: |
+-------+-------+-------+
| . . .| . . . | . 38. |
| . . .| . . . | . . . |
| . 35 .| . . . | . . . |
+-------+-------+-------+
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
+-------+-------+-------+
| . . .| . . . | . 38. |
| . . .| . . . | . . . |
| . 58 .| . . . |38 . . |
+-------+-------+-------+
|
|
You need to read the second post in the thread. Carefully. The XY-wing you cite does solve the puzzle directly. But, the extended XY-wing is different. It is:
Code: |
+-------+-------+-------+
| . . 35| . . . | . 38. |
| . . .| . . . | . . . |
| . 35 .| . . . | . . . |
+-------+-------+-------+
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
+-------+-------+-------+
| . . .| . . . | . 38. |
| . . .| . . . | . . . |
| . 58 .| . . . |38 . . |
+-------+-------+-------+
|
It has <38> as a pivot, <35> and <58> as pincers, and takes out <5> in R3C2.
Warning: "Sophisticate" status in jeopardy! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cgordon
Joined: 04 May 2007 Posts: 769 Location: ontario, canada
|
Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Keith:
Yeah yeah - now I see it. You are sticking the "=YZ=YZ" bit in the middle of the "XZ-XY-YZ" bit - not at the end. What troubles me is that two prominent regulars agreed that this method was fun.
Sophisticates are not usually into hard work and unnecessary labouring. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nataraj
Joined: 03 Aug 2007 Posts: 1048 Location: near Vienna, Austria
|
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Craig,
rest assured, I am not "into hard work and unnecessary labouring" (but then again I would not call myself a sophisticate ... )
On the contrary, I am quite lazy. So when I've gone to all that trouble and finally found an xy-wing, I try and check all other possibilities, even when at first glance the xy-wing doesn't eliminate anything.
It is like a salvage operation. Or, you could say, it is two shots for the price of one. Amazingly often, the extension of such a wing, be it at either end or in the middle, yields a useful result. In my experience, it is MUCH easier to spot xy-wings that way.
Long live the flightless bird!
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
keith
Joined: 19 Sep 2005 Posts: 3355 Location: near Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nataraj,
Great picture!
(All: The inside joke here is that some of us are naming these "useless" wings that make no direct eliminations as "flightless" wings.)
Nataraj is correct: If you are looking for XY-wings and find one that does not make an elimination, look to see if you can extend it by coloring.
Or, if you have a chain XY=XY=XY, see if it can be the pivot of an extended XY-wing.
Last night I was looking at the discussions from a year or two ago. It is incredible how the human-recognizable pencil and paper techniques have evolved and improved.
Keith |
|
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
|