The New Sudoku Players' Forum

[Heuresement]

For me. The Times's fiendish su doku puzzles from yesterday and day before yesterday (Nos.340 and 338) have not presented much of a challenge. Usually I take 30-40 minutes with many pen-marks but in the last two days, I have taken much less time, and no pen-marks. Is this deliberate or am I mistaken? Any opinions anyone?

ps My wife and children prefer me to do them quicker so there are some plusses.

[PaulIQ164]

I've found them fairly easy too. I don't know if they really are getting easier or if we're all just getting better with experience.

[possum]

I'm thinking they just seem easier than before now that we've been doing the killers.

[CathyW]

They definitely are easier the last couple of days at least. I dubbed today's puzzle into the Sudoku program and it was verified as Medium. I would have thought Fiendish ought to always be Hard level

[Pi]

I agree with you, i did both of those puzzles in under 8 mins, and that is around the quickest i can ever do a feindish, i think 15 mins is about optimum for a puzzle, i would like to see the pappocom very hard in the times, after all there are three sudoku's each day so there could still be some easier ones for beginners

[Pappocom]

The probable explanation is that you are getting better. That's great news. It shows that our abilities in logic can improve with practice.

A possible or partial explanation is that, coincidentally, there have been two consecutive easier-than-average Fiendish puzzles. Not every Fiendish puzzle is identically fiendish, of course.

- Wayne

[tso]

The last few TIMES Sudoku's labeled as "FIENDISH":

#340 -- Tactics required: naked and hidden singles.
#338 -- Tactics required: naked singles.
#336 -- Tactics required: naked and hidden singles.
#333 -- Tactics required: naked and hidden singles, locked candidates, naked triples.
#328 -- Tactics required: naked and hidden singles.

But the question is, are they getting easier, or have they always been this easy? I went back and checked five "Fiendish" puzzles the TIMES had published -- 157, 160, 161, 166 and 172. Here's what I found:

#157 -- Tactics required: naked singles
#160 -- Tactics required: naked and hidden singles, locked candidates
#161 -- Tactics required: naked and hidden singles, locked candidates, naked pairs and triples
#166 -- Tactics required: naked and hidden singles
#172 -- Tactics required: naked and hidden singles, naked pairs

Though these five taken together are more difficult that the last five published, #157 is as easy as any of the last five and #333 is harder than any except #161. So I'd say "no", the puzzles aren't getting any easier.

#157 and #338 have no business being labeled as "FIENDISH" -- or even "DIFFICULT". They should be labeled "EASY" or "TRIVIAL". Puzzles that require only hidden and naked singles simply CANNOT be difficult, and it seems silly to me to label them beyond MEDIUM or similar terms.

I think it was Truman Capote who said "That's not writing, that's just typing." Well, this isn't logic deduction, it's just filling in the blanks.

For comparison, I just generated 5 HARD puzzles using Pappocom's software. Four required the same four tactics: Naked singles, Hidden singles, Locked candidates and Naked Pairs. One required only hidden and naked singles. (None required triples.)

[Karyobin]

Yes.

[PaulIQ164]

Is a naked single a cell that only has one candidate, because all eight other numbers already appear somewhere in its environment (row+column+box) and a hidden single a number that has more than one candidate, but is placeable because it's the only cell in a row/col/box that can be that number?

[PaulIQ164]

6min49 for today's Fiendish. I admit I was purposefully going like the clappers (and when I was checking my answers, I noticed I'd left one cell empty, but let's not split hairs), but it still seems a little easy. Only hidden and naked singles requited again, I think.

[Karyobin]

I don't bother timing myself but I can't have been far outside your time Paul. There is definitely a pattern emerging here. Today's was insultingly easy, let's hope they return to some level of challenge soon.

[PaulIQ164]

In fact, as far as I can see, every puzzle in the Times Online archive (back to Aug 25) requires nothing more than singles to solve, except for #333 which needs a (frankly fairly easy to spot) 1-4 pair and that's all.

[Karyobin]

Well if you and I have both spotted it (not to mention tso), it must be true. The question is, what's going on? My guess is that pressure is being put on Wayne - but from where? Again, my instincts lead me to suspect the White House's hand in this.

Peak Oil is going to hit within roughly six months and none of us are gong to be able to afford petrol. We'll all have to stay at home and the boredom will reach epidemic proportions. In response to this clear threat to national morale, truly 'Fiendish' sudoku are being withheld and new variants are being developed weekly (as we've all seen, specifically: 'Killer', 'Mauve' and 'Hedge' sudoku).

Watch the papers. And the skies, if it helps.

[PaulIQ164]

It's like that bit in Joseph and His Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, except they're stockpiling Fiendishes instead of crops.

[Lardarse]

(as we've all seen, specifically: 'Killer', 'Mauve' and 'Hedge' sudoku)

Mauve and Hedge ???