| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
kragzy
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 112
Location: Australia
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 12:26 am Post subject: Feb 10 VH |
 |
|
| Just an X wing on 2? Or have I messed it up again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Marty R.
Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 5770
Location: Rochester, NY, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 1:57 am Post subject: Re: Feb 10 VH |
|
|
| kragzy wrote: | | Just an X wing on 2? Or have I messed it up again. |
Beats me. A kite on 9 did it for me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Earl
Joined: 30 May 2007
Posts: 677
Location: Victoria, KS
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:27 am Post subject: Feb 10 VH |
|
|
There is also a UR (17) that does it.
Earl |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Clement
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 1113
Location: Dar es Salaam Tanzania
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 6:58 am Post subject: Daily Sudoku: Tue 10-Feb-2009 VH |
|
|
| UR Type 1 <17> r12c39 leaving 2 in r2c3 solves the puzzle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
George Woods
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Posts: 304
Location: Dorset UK
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 9:33 am Post subject: An ER solution |
|
|
| Having declined the DR ,I used an (extended) ER, The 9s in box 4 give the "target" and the 9s in box 6 are the strong link. So the 9 in r9c9 is excluded because a 9 here gives a 9 at r8c1 attacking box4! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crunched
Joined: 05 Feb 2008
Posts: 168
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I too used a UR on the 17s for solution.
| Code: |
+----------------+--------------+-------------+
| 3 8 17 | 56 5689 2 | 569 4 17 |
| 5 167 127 | 168 1689 4 | 3 269 17 |
| 126 9 4 | 3 1567 67 | 256 26 8 |
+----------------+--------------+-------------+
| 1289 17 12789 | 28 3 5 | 4 289 6 |
| 289 3 6 | 4 28 1 | 7 5 29 |
| 4 15 1258 | 9 67 67 | 12 28 3 |
+----------------+--------------+-------------+
| 7 4 15 | 1256 1256 9 | 8 3 25 |
| 169 156 3 | 1256 1256 8 | 2569 7 4 |
| 689 2 589 | 7 4 3 | 569 1 59 |
+----------------+--------------+-------------+
|
Play this puzzle online at the Daily Sudoku site |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eddieg
Joined: 12 Jan 2006
Posts: 47
Location: San Diego, CA USA
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:28 pm Post subject: Easiest VH puzzle in some time |
|
|
| That took all of a couple of minutes. The UR on 17 opened it up completely with simple elimination from there. Normally I review emails and work on a VH puzzle for up to 1 hour before it's solzed. Not today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
storm_norm
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 1741
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
do any of you want to take a stab at finding a solution which ignores the x-wings, xy-wings, xyz-wings and URs and skyscrapers?
in another part of the forum, this question was used to make puzzles more interesting.
since this puzzle posed little threat of insanity from the thinkers out there, maybe, just maybe, an alternate solution is needed to spice things up a little?
anyone wanna take a gander at skipping the normal routes? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stanley P
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 20
Location: Tennessee, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 12:24 pm Post subject: X-Wing on 2 |
|
|
| I am responding to the post by kragzy. I found the UR route but was intrigued by your comment about the x-wing. I too found the x-wing (rows 2 & 6) and surprisingly it solved it for me. I am a bit surprised because VH puzzles usually require more than an x-wing to solve. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tlanglet
Joined: 17 Oct 2007
Posts: 2468
Location: Northern California Foothills
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| storm_norm wrote: |
in another part of the forum, this question was used to make puzzles more interesting. |
Norm, I missed (forgot?) this discussion. Where do I find it?
Ted |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
storm_norm
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 1741
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tlanglet wrote: | | storm_norm wrote: |
in another part of the forum, this question was used to make puzzles more interesting. |
Norm, I missed (forgot?) this discussion. Where do I find it?
Ted |
When Danny started to post puzzles, he sometimes would state that the puzzles were more interesting if we skipped the x-wings and xy-wings and xyz-wings or something to that effect.
I propose skipping x, xy, xyz-wings, UR type 1's and skyscrapers (that finish the puzzle).
its just a suggestion since this puzzle posed little threat otherwise. AND therefore would conjure up a little more insanity and interesting topics of convo.
I am in no way trying to sabotage the thread.
instead, I wanted to know what the posters thought about trying to find an alternative solution route in order to move past the same mundane banter about how the puzzles are solved with a single VH move.
in doing so, this might enlighten the readers of the VH forum to other patterns available for solving more difficult puzzles in the future.
the upside is limitless. it would be fodder for inviting stimulating intellectual convo.
 cool?
Last edited by storm_norm on Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:02 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tlanglet
Joined: 17 Oct 2007
Posts: 2468
Location: Northern California Foothills
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| storm_norm wrote: |
instead, I wanted to know what the posters thought about trying to find an alternative solution route in order to move past the same mundane banter about how the puzzles are solved with a single VH move. |
Great suggestion! I, for one, will pursue this idea in the future ..........
Ted |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wapati
Joined: 10 Jun 2008
Posts: 472
Location: Brampton, Ontario, Canada.
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| storm_norm wrote: | ...
instead, I wanted to know what the posters thought about trying to find an alternative solution route in order to move past the same mundane banter about how the puzzles are solved with a single VH move.
.... |
Pretty much everybody does cleanup before looking for "hard" moves.
It is up to the solver what methods are part of the cleanup.
Ignoring an x-wing or an xy-wing or a UR1 seems silly, if you understand them. URs and BUGs are slightly different in that some people chose to never use them.
I think that listing a single VH cracker remains useful in cases where there are several concurrent VH or better moves. It encourages people who didn't find it to look further, if they have interest.
That's my nickel spent!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keith
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 3355
Location: near Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
So, why not just go and find a more difficult (harder) puzzle?
Avoiding a particular technique is not as simple as it seems. Don't use that X-wing? A skyscraper will do! Don't use that skyscraper? Then, coloring will do!
Don't use an XY-wing, that W-wing will do. Or an M-wing.
We've been down this road before. "Don't use a technique" becomes code for "don't use any technique that makes the same elimination as some (supposely lesser) technique does".
We should be looking for simpler ways to solve difficult puzzles. That is how we found the W-wing and the M-wing.
Why on earth would we want to look for more difficult ways to solve simpler puzzles? (For the same reason we do not step on the cracks in the sidewalk? It makes simple things seem not so simple.)
For an endless supply of puzzles of any (and somewhat unpredictable) difficulty, go to Menneske. Or, start solving Danny's daj puzzles in this forum.
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nataraj
Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Posts: 1048
Location: near Vienna, Austria
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| keith wrote: |
We should be looking for simpler ways to solve difficult puzzles. That is how we found the W-wing and the M-wing.
Why on earth would we want to look for more difficult ways to solve simpler puzzles? |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tlanglet
Joined: 17 Oct 2007
Posts: 2468
Location: Northern California Foothills
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I really think we are all saying the same thing. How did we find the w-wing and the m-wing and all the other proved techniques we use daily. I think it was a result of trying something different by looking at the code in a new manner, and any thing different is difficult since it is new.
Ted |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keith
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 3355
Location: near Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nataraj,
You should have told me to lighten up a little!
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nataraj
Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Posts: 1048
Location: near Vienna, Austria
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am sure everybody has refrained from posting here in order to keep the date February 12th on top of the list 
For some en-lighten-ment and to further honor Darwin's birthday, this is the: Darwin Award site
My 2008 favorite: pining away |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keith
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 3355
Location: near Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nataraj wrote: | I am sure everybody has refrained from posting here in order to keep the date February 12th on top of the list
For some en-lighten-ment and to further honor Darwin's birthday ... |
Abraham Lincoln was born on the same day as Charles Darwin. February 12, 1809.
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sudocraz
Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 53
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for posting this Nataraj.
I just read the Darwin Awards.  It is hard to believe that people do such stupid things. Did anybody notice that this years group are all men? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
