- Code: Select all
`*---------------------------------------*`

| 9 1 3 | 8 5 6 | 7 2 4 |

| 6 8 7 | 2 3 4 |Y59 1 G59 |

| 2 5 4 | 7 1 9 | 3 8 6 |

|-----------+-------------+-------------|

| 35 37 8 | 569 2 1 | 4 36 79 |

| 1 6 2 | 4 7-9 3 | 8 G59 579 |

| 345 347 9 | 56 678 58 | 2 36 1 |

|-----------+-------------+-------------|

| 34 349 5 | 369 69 2 | 1 7 8 |

| 7 2 6 | 1 Y89 58 |G59 4 3 |

| 8 39 1 | 359 4 7 | 6 Y59 2 |

*---------------------------------------*

My solver came up with the following simple colouring move : Since r5c5 can see both G in r5c8 and Y in r8c5 it can't be 5 and this is enough to solve the puzzle. It's also solvable with two Kites.

Personally, I hate colouring. There are always other ways to come to the same eliminations, and its one of those moves where, even when the solver points it out to you, you sometimes have to stare at the grid for ages until you understand all of the colourings. Medusa colouring is even worse.

PS

I think that r4c4, r5c5 and r7c4 are not coloured because this is a Trap move (an uncoloured cell can see both colours). If they were coloured you would have a Contradiction move, where yellow some yellow coloured cells can see each other, proving that the yellow parity cells are all not 9 and the green parity cells are all 9. This would solve the puzzle, but maybe the solver uses Trap moves before Contradiction moves, and since the Trap move solves the puzzle, the extra colouring is not necessary. Who really knows ? Just another example of why colouring moves are only really partly documented.

Leren