The New Sudoku Players' Forum

[RSW]

A lot of different potential paths but no big fish that I saw.

Code: Select all

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

Is a 5-fish big enough? If I set my solver to search in descending order of fish size then it will often find big fish that won't show up the other way around. This is one of them:

Hidden Text: Show

Code: Select all

   1     2    3     4  5   6    7  8    9     
 +----------------+-----------+--------------+
1| 378   6    78  | 18 2   13 | 4  5    9    |
2| 2     138  4   | 5  38  9  | 18 7    6    |
3| 18    5    9   | 4  6   7  | 2  38   13   |
 +----------------+-----------+--------------+
4| 789   4    78  | 3  89  6  | 5  1    2    |
5| 68    2    3   | 18 458 15 | 9  46   7    |
6| 5     19   16  | 7  49  2  | 36 346  8    |
 +----------------+-----------+--------------+
7| 189   1389 2   | 6  35  4  | 7  389  135  |
8| 346   7    56  | 9  1   8  | 36 2    345  |
9| 34689 189  156 | 2  7   35 | 18 3689 1345 |
 +----------------+-----------+--------------+

5-Fish (aka Starfish, Squirmbag): In rows  1 3 6 8 & 9, digit 3 must go in columns  1 6 7 8 & 9


Going through Wapati's last list, I've noted the ones where I've found any fish, size 3 or bigger.

Code: Select all

....8.7.4.8...9.2...7...8.6....57.4.9..6.3..1.4.91....1.4...3...9.1...5.8.6.9.... Jellyfish
2....15...5..4..2.7....63....24...5....692....9...36....83....7.2..8..3...32....4 (needed chain)
9..4.3..8...869....6.....9..3.....5....3.2...8.1.5.4.3.1.....8...2.3.5....62817.. Swordfish
.........4.......3.15...62.3..5.2..9.2.....4..8..7..1..5..3..9.1..8.7..2..92.61.. Jellyfish
1.......92.4...5.1.9.8.1.3.....5.....7.....4...64.27...4.....9..5.1.3.6.6..794..3 (needed chain)
5.1.9...2..6..2...27.5.1.....57..23.6.......7.23..94.....2.6.71...9..3..9...5.6.4 Swordfish
52...1.6.8..42...1..........9..7...4.5.1.2.7.6...4..8..........9...37..5.7.5...43 Squirmbag/Starfish
87.42....9.4.37....1.......2....9.1.46...1.37.9.76...4.......7....81.3.9....74.25 (needed chain)


[SpAce]

Is a 5-fish big enough? If I set my solver to search in descending order of fish size then it will often find big fish that won't show up the other way around.

Surprise surprise. But why the hell would you ever do that, except for testing purposes? Big (> Jellyfish) basic fishes only exist as orthogonal counterparts to smaller ones, so there's never a need to look for them. No manual player would ever do that either.

This is one of them:

Hidden Text: Show

Code: Select all

   1     2    3     4  5   6    7  8    9     
 +----------------+-----------+--------------+
1| 378   6    78  | 18 2   13 | 4  5    9    |
2| 2     138  4   | 5  38  9  | 18 7    6    |
3| 18    5    9   | 4  6   7  | 2  38   13   |
 +----------------+-----------+--------------+
4| 789   4    78  | 3  89  6  | 5  1    2    |
5| 68    2    3   | 18 458 15 | 9  46   7    |
6| 5     19   16  | 7  49  2  | 36 346  8    |
 +----------------+-----------+--------------+
7| 189   1389 2   | 6  35  4  | 7  389  135  |
8| 346   7    56  | 9  1   8  | 36 2    345  |
9| 34689 189  156 | 2  7   35 | 18 3689 1345 |
 +----------------+-----------+--------------+


5-Fish (aka Starfish, Squirmbag): In rows 1 3 6 8 & 9, digit 3 must go in columns 1 6 7 8 & 9

So, you STILL think a 5-fish is a reasonable thing to parade around when its complementary X-Wing does the same job? We've been over this before, a couple of times probably (last time it was a Leviathan vs a 1-fish, if I remember correctly). It seems that you didn't listen then, or the times before, and I'm not expecting you to listen now, but I say it again: there's never a need to use a bigger basic fish than a Jellyfish. It's exactly the same as with disjoint subsets: you never need to report a bigger subset than a quad if you use both naked and hidden ones, because anything bigger than a quad has a smaller counterpart.

Of course it's not technically wrong to report a Starfish any more than a quin, but it just looks really dumb. If you don't mind that, go ahead and keep doing it. However, it's also pretty confusing for beginners, because when you report a subset or a fish, people normally expect it to be the smallest possible. Beginners don't necessarily realize that anything bigger than a Jellyfish can't be the smallest basic fish available, so they may get confused and think they need to look for those bigger fishes too.

(Big subsets are actually a bit more reasonable because naked and hidden ones are found differently. In manual solving it's normal to find large subsets before their smaller counterparts depending on which kind (naked or hidden) you're looking for. With fishes there's no such excuse because the only difference is whether you search for rows or columns first, and I doubt that any manual player would ever find a Starfish before an X-Wing, no matter their orientations (except perhaps in the highly unlikely case that they're solving in some other-than-rc-space where fishes look like subsets). Either way, in both cases the smaller one should almost always be reported, no matter which one you find first.)

I'm starting to remember some reasons why I took a vacation in the first place... (Btw, another source of frustration I've mentioned before but you've refused to fix: the row numbers in your grids prevent them from being copy-pasted into Hodoku. So thanks again for that extra editing step you keep requiring from your readers. I expect no less.)

[yzfwsf]

Code: Select all

2....15...5..4..2.7....63....24...5....692....9...36....83....7.2..8..3...32....4 (needed chain)
1.......92.4...5.1.9.8.1.3.....5.....7.....4...64.27...4.....9..5.1.3.6.6..794..3 (needed chain)
87.42....9.4.37....1.......2....9.1.46...1.37.9.76...4.......7....81.3.9....74.25 (needed chain)


In my solver, these three don't need chains. Here is the solution to one of the puzzles

no_chain.png (16.55 KiB) Viewed 561 times

[RSW]

In my solver, these three don't need chains. Here is the solution to one of the puzzles

no_chain.png

There are still a number of intermediate solving techniques that I haven't yet included in my solver. So, if the solution requires one of those, then it will fail to find a solution unless I have chains enabled.

[SpAce]

RSW, once again no comment about the fish stuff? Like I predicted:

It seems that you didn't listen then, or the times before, and I'm not expecting you to listen now

So it's a safe bet that we're going to keep seeing funny big fishes from you in the future, over and over again?

I get it why you don't want to answer me, but what I don't get is why you keep pushing the same funny stuff like you didn't know any better. Disliking me is understandable (and I don't care about that), considering that I haven't always kept my frustrations to myself, but repeatedly ignoring sound advice even from an adversary is another thing. You're shooting your own foot with that attitude. (On the other hand, it's a more interesting problem if you don't think my advice is sound. I'd really like to hear your arguments in that case.)