| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
nataraj
Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Posts: 1048
Location: near Vienna, Austria
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:34 am Post subject: June 30 "very hard" medium at best |
 |
|
Don't know what happened.
The puzzle practically solved itself. So many freebies at the start, rarely a house with less than 5 or 6 solved cells later.
Just as fast as my fingers could write ... Not even a second coffee!
I could not believe it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
andras
Joined: 31 Oct 2007
Posts: 56
Location: Mid Wales
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree - I had exactly the same result, except that in my case it was the second cup of tea that I didn't get! 
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
storm_norm
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 1741
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 7:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| yep, definitely a mistake in the difficulty categorization for this one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
George Woods
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Posts: 304
Location: Dorset UK
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:34 am Post subject: wasted remote pair |
|
|
| I had to do it twice to persuade myself that the first time wasn't a fluke. Second time I didn't need the remote pair that I noted with glee first time, but later as the solution emerged, it seemed as if that remote pair was not a help! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nataraj
Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Posts: 1048
Location: near Vienna, Austria
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | yep, definitely a mistake in the difficulty categorization for this one |
... so I went back to check this weekend's medium and hard on the off-chance that there might be a true very hard hidden in them. No such luck.
I agree that something must be seriously wrong with the classification, since the "hard" did not require anything more than naked tuples. So what makes it "hard", then?
Today's puzzle at least required a few box/line interactions. In that respect it was indeed more difficult than the latest "hard" ...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cgordon
Joined: 04 May 2007
Posts: 769
Location: ontario, canada
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'll have to do this again because I needed a Type 4 UR on <16> to remove the <6> from C1 Box 4. Easy after that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cgordon
Joined: 04 May 2007
Posts: 769
Location: ontario, canada
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes: You guys are right ! I did it again and this time I spotted the naked pair of <6> in R4 Box5. Didn't need no clever stuff. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
storm_norm
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 1741
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| conspiracy theorists might assume this is a omen to another server crash?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nataraj
Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Posts: 1048
Location: near Vienna, Austria
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| storm_norm wrote: | | conspiracy theorists might assume this is a omen to another server crash?? |
Nah, don't think so. If servers crashed just because of wrong information stored on them, the internet would look like it did in the 1930s.
More likely, Sam taking all puzzles offline until the error is found.
Please don't, Sam! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
