View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
keith
Joined: 19 Sep 2005 Posts: 3355 Location: near Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 5:13 am Post subject: MM Diabolical June 3, 2007 |
|
|
Did you try this one?
Code: | Puzzle: MM060307 Diabolical
+-------+-------+-------+
| . . 3 | . 6 . | 5 . . |
| 1 . . | . . . | . . 9 |
| . . 2 | 4 . 8 | . 1 . |
+-------+-------+-------+
| 8 2 . | 3 . 7 | . 5 . |
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
| . 3 . | 2 . 9 | . 8 7 |
+-------+-------+-------+
| . 9 . | 8 . 4 | 7 . . |
| 5 . . | . . . | . . 1 |
| . . 6 | . 3 . | 4 . . |
+-------+-------+-------+ |
You can do the "usual" advanced stuff, or you can solve R1C9.
Keith |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mogulmeister
Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 1151
|
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 4:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nice puzzle- I worked this through twice and indeed, focussing on just r1c9 and using just strong links theory managed to solve r1c9 and after that the puzzle resolved easily. If you don't do that, then the puzzle needs more lengthy use of other techniques.
Provoked 2 thoughts:
1)What thought process leads to singling out r1c9 ?
2)I'm not sure I'd have seen it and would have ploughed on with x-wings etc |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mogulmeister
Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 1151
|
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well I've thought about point 1.
It is clear with this puzzle that the 8's are very nicely aligned in conjugate pairs - in fact there are two x-wings sitting one inside the other so crack one of those 8's and the rest being connected will tumble.
If we look at the grid early on:
We see 2 strong link structures in orange (2's) pincers at r1c6 r7c9 and pink (4's) pincers at r1c1 and r4c9 both eliminate their respective candidates in r1c9 leaving only 8. When this is done the puzzle unravels easily. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Marty R.
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 Posts: 5770 Location: Rochester, NY, USA
|
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 4:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
The 15-25-12 XY-Wing based in r9c6 was all that was needed. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mogulmeister
Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 1151
|
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
True enough Marty - but I was looking at Keith's hypothesis about directly solving r1c9. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mogulmeister
Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 1151
|
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I overlooked your XY wing when I did my original first attempt. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Marty R.
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 Posts: 5770 Location: Rochester, NY, USA
|
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mogulmeister wrote: | True enough Marty - but I was looking at Keith's hypothesis about directly solving r1c9. |
I'm not a good thinker like some of you guys. I'm a mechanic and take the path of least resistance. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
keith
Joined: 19 Sep 2005 Posts: 3355 Location: near Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 1:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I did not decide to focus on R1C9 when I first solved it. I noticed that R1C9 could be solved by two forks (skyscrapers), and the puzzle falls apart.
Keith |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|