eleven wrote:Don,

it is not clear to me, what you are out for.

Apparently, though I don't think I could have made it more clear! While I appreciate your error-checking my solution and finding what is, by any measure, a careless error (thankfully in one of the final steps rather than early steps), the challenge was not to error-check my solution. I will address corrections to my solution of Gurth's puzzle in a separate thread.

Let's refresh. This was your post to sultan vinegar:

'Simply because you have learned that stuff on the Eureka forum. So you are no real newcomer, but biased.

You can notate your things as you want, so far i understood each notation. But i insist, that knowing AIC's is no requirement (and only a very limited help) for being a good solver.

Letting others know, that they would need to learn it, is all but newcomers friendly.'

The first statement is a dismissive statement implying that anyone using Eureka notation is biased as if Eureka notation is of minor value and there are realistic alternatives, presumably your 'freehand' method. This general dismissal of Eureka notation (and therefore promotion of your own as of equal value) is a continuation of several of your posts going back several years.

Ordinarily, I would have no interest in once again addressing this tiresome agenda of yours, but since 'newcomers' are mentioned, I don't want newcomers misled into thinking that learning Eureka notation is not necessary or is a waste of time when it comes to taking part in a sudoku-solving forum.

So, I'll both restate and further clarify my point(s):

1. Even though it is true that it is possible for a good solver to not know AICs, it is categorically false that knowing the present standard notation is (to quote 'eleven')

'only a very limited help'. Learning and understanding a standard notation means that one can grow from a 'newcomer' solving status to an excellent solver by following the solutions of other more experienced solvers who are using the standard notation.

2. Even with one-steppers, the more complex the step particularly nets, the more difficult it will be for others to understand it if you are using your own, non-standard (ie. not Eureka-AIC) notation.

3. When it comes to puzzles beyond one-steppers, it will be increasingly difficult, as the more steps are required or the more complex the solution is (even if a few steps)

for anyone to know if you are a good solver if you are using your own non-standard notation (such as your freehand method), because those using a standard notation will be less likely to even read it or, particularly for newcomers, it will just be too hard to follow. Not to mention that the less standard the notation, the less others are able to find mistakes in that solution.

So, eleven, my challenge to you was not to error-check my solution (though I do appreciate it) nor was it to in any way use my solution. It was to come up

with your own entire solution of Gurth's puzzle using your freehand method and let us see how easy it is to follow (for newcomers or allcomers) vs. Eureka-AIC notation.

Finally, my guess is that you were able to quickly error-check my solution because the notation was so clear. Also, it did not surprise me that you could take one of my steps and express it in your freehand method because each of my steps were relatively simple non-network chains. But again, doing that was not the challenge.

EDIT: Oh yes: a fair comparison would exclude the use of nets.