dailysudoku.com Forum Index dailysudoku.com
Discussion of Daily Sudoku puzzles
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

One more puzzle (DB021706)

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    dailysudoku.com Forum Index -> Other puzzles
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
keith



Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 3174
Location: near Detroit, Michigan, USA

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 1:44 am    Post subject: One more puzzle (DB021706) Reply with quote

Here is today's David Bodycombe puzzle.

Code:


Puzzle: DB021706
+-------+-------+-------+
| . . 5 | . . . | . . 2 |
| 7 9 2 | . 1 . | 6 . . |
| . 6 . | . . . | . . . |
+-------+-------+-------+
| . 1 . | . . 3 | . . 8 |
| 4 . . | 8 . 9 | . . 5 |
| 2 . . | 7 . . | . 6 . |
+-------+-------+-------+
| . . . | . . . | . 4 . |
| . . 4 | . 6 . | 2 9 3 |
| 6 . . | . . . | 1 . . |
+-------+-------+-------+



Last week's Friday puzzle (DB021706 in the thread "Two more Puzzles") is great training for this one!

Personally, I very much enjoy these.

Keith
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steve R



Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 289
Location: Birmingham, England

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 3:30 am    Post subject: David Bodycombeís 17 February Reply with quote

Keith

I enjoy them too.

Iím not an enthusiast of uniqueness assumptions and forcing chains so these puzzles, involving at most an XY-Wing, are just up my street.

The other aspect which appeals is that the grading seems reasonably consistent. You do not categorise this particular example but I should guess about five stars. Consistency prevents me from embarking on a trail that I cannot finish within an acceptable time.

Thank you for providing access to DB's weekend stuff.

Steve
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guest






PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 3:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I believe by definition a valid Sudoku must have only one solution, so uniqueness assumptions are actually givens. If it has more than one solution, then logic will not and cannot solve it.

Tracy
Back to top
keith



Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 3174
Location: near Detroit, Michigan, USA

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 6:50 am    Post subject: DB's puzzles Reply with quote

WARNING: SOLUTION HINTS CONTAINED BELOW!!

Steve,

This one is five stars. I agree that the difficulty and the required solution techniques are just about right (for me).


Tracy,

You are correct. The implied contract in a Sudoku puzzle is: Find THE solution to ...

Even if the contract were: Find ONE solution to ..., uniqueness techniques would apply. They only may fail if the contract is: Find ALL solutions to ...

David Bryant has a great (serendipitous) example of a puzzle that has a few multiple solutions. I found that even if you use "uniqueness" techniques, the fact of multiple solutions is obvious.

That said, my own belief is: If published puzzles were to have multiple solutions, I would soon lose interest. I'm with Steve: Bring on the wings and the fishes, but I kind of draw the line at chains, at least until someone can give a coherent explanation of a systematic way to find them. (That I, a mere mortal, can understand and use. In my opinion, David Bryant and someone_somewhere are not mere mortals, they are geniuses. I cannot fathom how they see this stuff)

Anyway, the current puzzle is interesting. What I found is that there are two unique rectangles that eliminate some possibilities, but they are not needed. Even if you find them, you still need to find an XY-wing in the top right area of the puzzle. Then, like last week's puzzle, the final step is either a BUG (which assumes uniqueness), or (another) XY-wing (which does not).

Happy puzzling, (and thank you for the soapbox)

Keith
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TKiel
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Keith,

Although I too only like to do puzzles with a single solution, I know some people who do puzzles with multiple solutions because they get many puzzles for the price of one and for the challenge of finding ALL the possible solutions for a particular puzzle. Maybe those kinds of puzzles need to have a different name.

Quote:
Bring on the wings and the fishes, but I kind of draw the line at chains


The proof behind all the wings and fishes is that they are chains, so it you use them you do use chains. It's just that they are fairly easy to spot and generally short enough that the exclusion is apparent, even for a paper and pencil solver. I'm sort of with you on what most people call forcing chains (for example, where assigning either candidate in a certain bivalue cell implies that a different cell must be a 6) because I have not seen an explanation that was logical for why that particular starting cell was chosen. I don't discount the logic behind the technique, but there seems to be no logical way for deciding where to start.

However, I do use chains that are conjugate links (up to three different ones can be linked to make exclusions) because the logic behind it and the logic of where to start is apparent. And it can be done in your head, although using helper software makes it much easier. They've enabled me to solve more advanced puzzles that don't fall to the more familiar patterned chains like swordfish, x-wing, etc...
Back to top
David Bryant



Joined: 29 Jul 2005
Posts: 559
Location: Denver, Colorado

PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 11:29 pm    Post subject: Where to start looking ... Reply with quote

Tracy wrote:
... I have not seen an explanation that was logical for why that particular starting cell was chosen.

I like the "double-implication chain" technique. It's not always easy to find the right cell to start from, but I have developed a couple of heuristic rules. Here's an example -- it's from Ruud ven der Werf's Nightmare puzzle for today, February 18.

After making the obvious moves I arrived at this position.
Code:
 26     9     1    78     4    78    36     5    236
 235    8    235    9     6    15     4    27    127
  4     7    56     3     2    15    18    68     9
  8     6     7     5     1     3     2     9     4
 123   23     9    468    7    468    5    368   168
 135   35     4     2     9    68    18   3678  1678
  7    235   235    1     8     9    36     4   2356
 236    4     8    76     5    276    9     1    23
  9     1    256   46     3    246    7    28    258

I can see a "non-unique rectangle" starting to form at r1c7, r1c9, r7c7, & r7c9. I can be sure that there's either a "2" at r1c9, or else there's a "2" or a "5" at r7c9. I don't see how to use that information directly, but I can use it to help find a "double-implication chain."

The heuristic rule I've developed says that any cell that's conjugate to a cell like r1c9 or r7c9 in this situation is a good starting point for a chain. I'm not sure why that is, but I've found it to be true in several dozen very tough puzzles, so I have faith in the rule.

Anyway, in this case my heuristic rule tells me to look for cells containing a "2" that's conjugate to r1c9 or r7c9, or for cells containing a "5" conjugate to r7c9. Here are some results.

A. r2c8 = 2 ==> r9c8 = 8
B. r2c8 = 2 ==> {3, 6} pair in r1c7&c9 ==> r3c8 = 8
Therefore r2c8 <> 2 and r2c8 = 7 ... this solves the puzzle.

C. r8c9 = 2 ==> r9c8 = 8
D. r8c9 = 2 ==> {3, 6} pair in r1c7&c9 ==> r3c8 = 8
Therefore r8c9 <> 2 and r8c9 = 3 ... this is also enough to solve the puzzle, although it's more work this way than if you find the "7" above.

I didn't find any good cells involving a "5". And a couple of the cells involving the "2" were duds. But this simple rule did help me uncover two closely related chains that solve the puzzle. dcb
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
keith



Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 3174
Location: near Detroit, Michigan, USA

PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 3:04 am    Post subject: More puzzles Reply with quote

Steve, et al:

There are two recent David Bodycombe puzzles posted in the "4 Star Constellation" thread.

Keith
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Marty R.



Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 5161
Location: Rochester, NY, USA

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Anyway, the current puzzle is interesting. What I found is that there are two unique rectangles that eliminate some possibilities, but they are not needed. Even if you find them, you still need to find an XY-wing in the top right area of the puzzle. Then, like last week's puzzle, the final step is either a BUG (which assumes uniqueness), or (another) XY-wing (which does not).

I solved this one without any trouble, using nothing more than hidden singles, naked pairs and triples and locked candidates.

It mystifies me how I solve some of these puzzles that I think I shouldn't and get stuck on others that I think I ought to solve.

There seems to be no middle ground; I either solve via the techniques mentioned above or else I get stuck. I seem to only very rarely find opportunities to use all these other techniques which I've read about and studied. Question Question Question
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    dailysudoku.com Forum Index -> Other puzzles All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
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