Bad programming Sudoku

Everything about Sudoku that doesn't fit in one of the other sections

Bad programming Sudoku

Postby Fritsel » Sat Jan 04, 2020 10:59 am

I am new here, so hello everyone. I Like to play Sudoku and normally I solve a 4 star in half an hour. But now I found a site with so bad programming the Sudoku's, that I solve a 4 star in about 4- 5 minutes, without much thinking. They daily put 1,2,3 and 4 star new Sudokus on internet and do not realize how poorly they are made.

See it for yourself at " sudokuonline.nl " and find out why they are soooooooo bad programmed.

Tried to contact the people behind this site, but no answers.

Have fun :lol:
Fritsel
 
Posts: 3
Joined: 04 January 2020

Re: Bad programming Sudoku

Postby Fritsel » Wed Feb 12, 2020 10:54 pm

I am approved by a moderator, but no ??? reply's on my massage?? Why not?? Bad programming is not nice, I think and it is daily.
Fritsel
 
Posts: 3
Joined: 04 January 2020

Re: Bad programming Sudoku

Postby JasonLion-Admin » Fri May 08, 2020 7:28 pm

There is no standard About what “4-Star” means so no reason to expoct.two sites to be consistente With each other.
User avatar
JasonLion-Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 85
Joined: 17 April 2010
Location: Silver Spring, MD, USA

Re: Bad programming Sudoku

Postby denis_berthier » Sat May 09, 2020 4:56 am

Fritsel wrote:I am new here, so hello everyone.
See it for yourself at " sudokuonline.nl " and find out why they are soooooooo bad programmed.
Tried to contact the people behind this site, but no answers.

Hi Fritsel, welcome to the forum
I agree with Jason's general answer, but I tried their **** puzzle of the day:
...436..8.3..9....7.......62.....9..163....5...7.54...........9.428..3..8..31....
It's solvable by singles.
So, whatever their rating system is, it doesn't look very serious.
denis_berthier
2010 Supporter
 
Posts: 1545
Joined: 19 June 2007
Location: Paris

Re: Bad programming Sudoku

Postby Fritsel » Sat May 09, 2020 8:02 am

Thanks for the answers and trying those bad sudoku's.

I donot quit understand what solving by singles means, but those sudoko's are not completely random programmed. It comes in groups of 3. Like: 156 3 X and so on. Also 561 3 X or 615 3 X. So you see 27 times the same groups. So no fun in solving it. A zero star Sudoko.

Have a fine day.
Fritsel
 
Posts: 3
Joined: 04 January 2020

Re: Bad programming Sudoku

Postby denis_berthier » Sat May 09, 2020 8:14 am

Fritsel wrote:I donot quit understand what solving by singles means.

It means that you can solve them using only Naked and Hidden Singles, i.e. the most elementary resolution rules.
denis_berthier
2010 Supporter
 
Posts: 1545
Joined: 19 June 2007
Location: Paris

Re: Bad programming Sudoku

Postby SpAce » Sat May 09, 2020 4:19 pm

Yes, it's unfortunate that there's no standard for the stars. What should it be like if there were?

Personally I think the number of stars should roughly follow SE ratings, with 4 stars being the toughest basics-only level. My local newspaper does it pretty well (as a curiosity, those puzzles are made by the infamous Arto Inkala). Stars 1-4 need only basics, while 5-star puzzles need at least one simple non-basic technique (usually just one). Also the basic techniques required for each level 1-4 reflect quite well their actual difficulty in a p&p context (my timings increase linearly for the first three: <5-10-15 min; after that it depends more on the puzzle and whether I need some kind of pencil marks or not). I think the technique spread is something like this, though it's been a while and I've never really analyzed it:

1 star: full house, box-based hidden single
2 stars: + line-based hidden single, naked single
3 stars: + pointing, hidden pair
4 stars: + claiming, naked pair, hidden/naked triple, (rarely) hidden/naked quad
5 stars: + UR, X-Wing, Turbot Fishes, W-Wing, Y-Wing, BUG, X-Chain, XY-Chain, XYZ-Wing, simple AIC, Swordfish...

(In a software environment with automatic pm, naked should come before hidden of course, but this is the correct order for p&p and other no-pm solving.)

For me, 4 stars is actually the hardest level, or rather the one that is the most likely to require at least some pm. A great majority of the 5-star puzzles is solvable with a simple UR, X-Wing, or Skyscraper, and I can spot those almost always without pm. Not so easy with the hardest basics. Since the basics in the 5-star puzzles are usually easier than in the 4-star puzzles, I almost always complete them faster and without pm. However, this is not a flaw in the star ratings (it's just me).

What do you think? Would something like that work for a universal star system (with stars beyond 5 for more difficult puzzles)? Is something close to it common in other newspapers?
User avatar
SpAce
 
Posts: 2354
Joined: 22 May 2017

Re: Bad programming Sudoku

Postby tarek » Sun May 10, 2020 8:16 pm

SpAce wrote:1 star: full house, box-based hidden single
2 stars: + line-based hidden single, naked single
3 stars: + pointing, hidden pair
4 stars: + claiming, naked pair, hidden/naked triple, (rarely) hidden/naked quad
5 stars: + UR, X-Wing, Turbot Fishes, W-Wing, Y-Wing, BUG, X-Chain, XY-Chain, XYZ-Wing, simple AIC, Swordfish...

I like it but would like to modify as I was a fan of the "Superior" Times sudoku
SpAce wrote:1 star: full house, box-based hidden single (Super Mild)
2 stars: + line-based hidden single, naked single (Mild)
3 stars: + pointing, hidden pair (Moderate)
4 stars: + claiming, naked pair (severe)
5 stars: + hidden/naked triple, , X-Wing, (rarely) hidden/naked quad (Fiendish)
6 stars: + UR, Turbot Fishes, W-Wing, Y-Wing, BUG, X-Chain, XY-Chain, XYZ-Wing, simple AIC, Swordfish... (Super Fiendish)
User avatar
tarek
 
Posts: 3726
Joined: 05 January 2006

Re: Bad programming Sudoku

Postby SpAce » Sun May 10, 2020 8:40 pm

Hi tarek,

tarek wrote:1 star: full house, box-based hidden single (Super Mild)
2 stars: + line-based hidden single, naked single (Mild)
3 stars: + pointing, hidden pair (Moderate)
4 stars: + claiming, naked pair (severe)
5 stars: + hidden/naked triple, , X-Wing, (rarely) hidden/naked quad (Fiendish)
6 stars: + UR, Turbot Fishes, W-Wing, Y-Wing, BUG, X-Chain, XY-Chain, XYZ-Wing, simple AIC, Swordfish... (Super Fiendish)

I like that even better! However, I'd drop UR (at least Type 1 and 4, maybe 2 as well) to level 5 as it's definitely the easiest non-basic to spot (for me at least). I might do that even for the Turbots and BUG+1, though they're a bit harder than UR and X-Wing. The rest of the non-basics are clearly harder, especially without pm, so 6 stars is good for them.
User avatar
SpAce
 
Posts: 2354
Joined: 22 May 2017

Re: Bad programming Sudoku

Postby tarek » Sun May 10, 2020 8:56 pm

SpAce wrote:I like that even better! However, I'd drop UR (at least Type 1 and 4, maybe 2 as well) to level 5 as it's definitely the easiest non-basic to spot (for me at least). I m :D ight do that even for the Turbots and BUG+1, though they're a bit harder than UR and X-Wing. The rest of the non-basics are clearly harder, especially without pm, so 6 stars is good for them.

Final modification then :D
Star Rating wrote:1 star: full house, box-based hidden single (Super Mild)
2 stars: + line-based hidden single, naked single (Mild)
3 stars: + pointing, hidden pair (Moderate)
4 stars: + claiming, naked pair (severe)
5 stars: + hidden/naked triple, , X-Wing, UR (1, 2, 4), Turbot Fishes, BUG+1 (Fiendish)
6 stars: + UR3, (rarely) hidden/naked quad, W-Wing, Y-Wing, other BUGs, X-Chain, XY-Chain, XYZ-Wing, simple AIC, Swordfish... (Super Fiendish)
User avatar
tarek
 
Posts: 3726
Joined: 05 January 2006

Re: Bad programming Sudoku

Postby SpAce » Sun May 10, 2020 10:15 pm

tarek wrote:Final modification then :D

Perfect! :D
User avatar
SpAce
 
Posts: 2354
Joined: 22 May 2017


Return to General

cron