## difference in rating between SE and SJE

For fans of Killer Sudoku, Samurai Sudoku and other variants

### difference in rating between SE and SJE

I found already differences in rating between both programs. Now I found an example to reproduce this which has to do with the way they handle generalized intersections.
SE:
Hidden Text: Show

Code: Select all
`Analysis results  Difficulty rating: 7,2 This Sudoku can be solved using the following logical methods: 61 x Hidden Single (1,0-1,5) 2 x Direct Claiming (1,9) 1 x Direct Hidden Triplet (2,5) 21 x Claiming (2,8) 1 x X-Wing (3,2) 1 x Naked Triplet (3,6) 1 x XY-Wing (4,2) 1 x Unique Rectangle type 1 (4,5) 1 x Unique Rectangle type 4 (4,5) 3 x Generalized X-Wing (6,5) 12 x Forcing X-Chain (6,6) 2 x Turbot Fish (6,6) 7 x Forcing Chain (7,1-7,2)`

SJE:
Hidden Text: Show

Code: Select all
`Analysis results  Difficulty rating: 6,6 This Sudoku Jigsaw can be solved using the following logical methods: 60 x Hidden Single (1,0-1,5) 1 x Direct Pointing (1,7) 1 x Direct Claiming (1,9) 2 x Naked Single (2,3) 12 x Pointing (2,6) 11 x Claiming (2,8) 15 x Generalized Intersection (2,9) 1 x Naked Pair (3,0) 1 x X-Wing (3,2) 1 x Naked Triplet (3,6) 1 x Unique Rectangle type 1 (4,5) 2 x Generalized X-Wing (6,5) 2 x Turbot Fish (6,6)`

Code: Select all
`...4.9...31.....57....4.............8...5...6.............2....79.....23...3.5... 111111123144552223145522663445226633455266337456668397458888397488999997889977777`
urhegyi

Posts: 611
Joined: 13 April 2020

### Re: difference in rating between SE and SJE

I think that "2.9 Generalized Intersections" is a Jigsaw-only technique? Perhaps it corresponds to what we commonly call "LoL" eliminations.

That would explain its absence from the SE(Jigsaw hack) ratings ...

As 1to9only said, the SE/SJE ratings will be different, for precisely this reason.

Mathimagics
2017 Supporter

Posts: 1870
Joined: 27 May 2015
Location: Canberra

### Re: difference in rating between SE and SJE

In SE when Latin Square is selected there are no 3x3 blocks only rows and columns so General Intersection is not needed!
This also applies when other variants are enabled!!
Will need to look into this further!!!
1to9only

Posts: 3992
Joined: 04 April 2018

### Re: difference in rating between SE and SJE

Another example to reproduce:
Code: Select all
`.74........9.....5....6..14...........3...6...........24..3....7.....9........19. 111111123144552223145522663445226633455266337456668397458888397488999997889977777`

SE rating 6.6
Code: Select all
`Analysis results  Difficulty rating: 6,6 This Sudoku can be solved using the following logical methods: 57 x Hidden Single (1,0-1,5) 4 x Direct Claiming (1,9) 1 x Direct Hidden Pair (2,0) 3 x Naked Single (2,3) 17 x Claiming (2,8) 1 x Naked Pair (3,0) 1 x X-Wing (3,2) 1 x XY-Wing (4,2) 3 x Generalized X-Wing (6,5) 4 x Forcing X-Chain (6,6)`

SJE rating 2.9
Code: Select all
`Analysis results  Difficulty rating: 2,9 This Sudoku Jigsaw can be solved using the following logical methods: 54 x Hidden Single (1,0-1,5) 5 x Direct Pointing (1,7) 1 x Direct Claiming (1,9) 2 x Direct Hidden Pair (2,0) 3 x Naked Single (2,3) 10 x Pointing (2,6) 9 x Claiming (2,8) 8 x Generalized Intersection (2,9)`
urhegyi

Posts: 611
Joined: 13 April 2020

### Re: difference in rating between SE and SJE

Can be solved with hidden/naked pairs , no triples and quads needed.
AND if you allow generalized intersections. No other methods needed.
Boxes and Jigsaw shapes are so different that generalized intersections are possible.

A SER rating of 3.0 is the outcome because I don't differ between the Naked Pair and the Direct Pair.
But I think generalized intersections are under estimated.
Can you see that (6)r2c2J5 => (-6)r6c2 (where J5 is Jigsaw piece 5) ? I surely can not.

SJE is correct.

Summary of logging:
Code: Select all
`Eliminated candidates per Method and per SudokuMethod   \  Sudoku |   SER |     1                   |-------|------Not counted elims  |     0 |   108Naked Singles      |   0.1 |    34Hidden Singles     |   0.2 |   102Naked Pair     [2] |     3 |     5Pointing/Claiming  |   2.8 |    66Locked Singles [3] |   2.9 |    30                   |-------|------Eliminated Cand's  |   345 |   345Sum(SER * Cand's)  | 310.6 | 310.6Initial Candidates :   345Maximum SER rating :     3 <- Approach Labour rating      : 310.6 <- Experimental ratingTime needed        : 00:00:02.169SiSeSuSo Solver and Generator (version 2021-10) `

Possible solution path:
Hidden Text: Show
Code: Select all
`[1,0] Pointing, Claiming  | (2)J1r1 => (-2)r1c8 (-2)r1c9 | (6)r1J1 => (-6)r2c1 | (4)r2J2 => (-4)r4c4 (-4)r4c5 (-4)r5c4 | (1)r7J8 => (-1)r6c6 (-1)r8c2 (-1)r8c3 | (9)r7J8 => (-9)r6c6 | (4)r8J9 => (-4)r6c8 (-4)r9c4 | (4)J7r9 => (-4)r9c1 | (5)J7r9 => (-5)r9c1 (-5)r9c2 (-5)r9c3 (-5)r9c4 | (9)c1J1 => (-9)r1c4 (-9)r1c5 (-9)r1c6 | (3)c2J4 => (-3)r4c1 (-3)r6c1 | (9)c2J5 => (-9)r3c4 | (4)J8c6 => (-4)r2c6 (-4)r4c6 (-4)r5c6 (-4)r8c6 (-4)r9c6 | (6)c8J9 => (-6)r8c4 (-6)r8c6 (-6)r9c3 (-6)r9c4 | (6)c9J7 => (-6)r9c6[2,1] r9c5=4 Hidden Single in row 5[2,2] r9c6=5 Hidden Single in row 6[2,3] r6c6=4 Hidden Single in col 6[2,4] r4c7=4 Hidden Single in jigsaw 4[3,5] r2c8=4 Hidden Single in row 8[3,6] r5c1=4 Hidden Single in row 1[3,7] r8c4=4 Hidden Single in row 4[4,7] Pointing, Claiming  | (7)J8r7 => (-7)r7c7 (-7)r7c8 (-7)r7c9 | (3)c1J1 => (-3)r1c4 (-3)r1c6 (-3)r1c7 | (2)J7c9 => (-2)r4c9 | (3)J7c9 => (-3)r1c9 (-3)r4c9 | (7)J7c9 => (-7)r4c9 | (8)J7c9 => (-8)r1c9 (-8)r4c9[5,8] r7c7=8 Naked Single[5,9] r7c9=6 Naked Single[6,10] r7c8=5 Naked Single[7,10] Pointing, Claiming  | (5)r1J1 => (-5)r3c1 | (6)r9J8 => (-6)r8c2 (-6)r8c3[8,11] r8c8=6 Hidden Single in row 8[9,11] Generalized Intersection  | (6)r2c2J5 => (-6)r6c2 | (6)c3r4J6 => (-6)r4c6 | (9)c5r4J6 => (-9)r4c6 | (1)r5c4J5 => (-1)r2c4 | (1)r6c2J4 => (-1)r2c2 (-1)r4c2 | (6)J6r6 => (-6)r6c1 | (2)c8r6J3 => (-2)r6c7 | (2)J3r6c8 => (-2)r6c8 | (3)J3r6c8 => (-3)r6c8 | (7)c8r6J3 => (-7)r6c7 | (7)J3r6c8 => (-7)r6c8 | (1)J4c1 => (-1)r1c1 (-1)r2c1 | (1)c2J5 => (-1)r2c5 (-1)r4c3 | (1)c3r7 => (-1)r7c4 (-1)r7c6 | (7)J9r9 => (-7)r9c9 | (6)c6J1 => (-6)r1c1 (-6)r1c4[10,12] r6c7=3 Naked Single[10,13] r6c8=8 Naked Single[11,14] r1c8=3 Naked Single[12,15] r1c6=6 Hidden Single in row 6[12,16] r2c6=1 Hidden Single in row 6[12,17] r5c2=1 Hidden Single in row 2[12,18] r6c1=1 Hidden Single in row 1[12,19] r7c3=1 Hidden Single in row 3[12,20] r8c5=1 Hidden Single in row 5[12,21] r6c2=9 Hidden Single in col 6[12,22] r1c4=1 Hidden Single in col 1[12,23] r9c4=3 Hidden Single in col 9[12,24] r4c6=3 Hidden Single in col 4[12,25] r4c9=1 Hidden Single in col 4[12,26] r8c9=3 Hidden Single in col 8[12,27] r1c9=9 Hidden Single in col 1[12,28] r3c1=9 Hidden Single in jigsaw 9[12,29] r9c3=7 Hidden Single in jigsaw 8[13,30] r8c6=2 Naked Single[14,31] r3c2=3 Hidden Single in row 2[14,32] r2c1=3 Hidden Single in col 2[14,33] r9c2=2 Hidden Single in col 9[14,34] r9c1=6 Hidden Single in jigsaw 8[15,35] r9c9=8 Naked Single[16,35] Naked/Hidden Pairs,Triplets,Quads  | NSS (27)r5c89 => (-27)r5c4 (-27)r5c5 (-7)r5c6[17,35] Pointing, Claiming  | (9)r4J2 => (-9)r5c4 | (5)J4r4 => (-5)r4c3 (-5)r4c4 (-5)r4c5 | (5)J2r5 => (-5)r5c5 | (8)J6r5 => (-8)r5c4 | (5)r6J6 => (-5)r3c7 | (5)J2c4 => (-5)r3c4 (-5)r6c4 | (5)c7J1 => (-5)r1c1 (-5)r1c5[18,36] r1c1=8 Naked Single[18,37] r1c5=2 Naked Single[18,38] r1c7=5 Naked Single[18,39] r4c1=5 Naked Single[18,40] r5c4=5 Naked Single[19,41] r3c3=5 Hidden Single in row 3[19,42] r6c5=5 Hidden Single in row 5[19,43] r8c2=5 Hidden Single in row 2[19,44] r8c3=8 Hidden Single in row 3[20,44] Generalized Intersection  | (2)r2c4J2 => (-2)r4c4 | (2)J2r2c4 => (-2)r2c4 | (7)c5r2J2 => (-7)r2c7 | (2)r2c7 => (-2)r3c7 | (7)r2J5 => (-7)r3c4 | (2)r3J5 => (-2)r4c3 | (2)c3J6 => (-2)r6c4 | (8)r3c4J2 => (-8)r4c4 | (7)c7r3 => (-7)r3c6 | (7)r3J6 => (-7)r6c4 | (8)c4J5 => (-8)r2c5 | (7)J2r4 => (-7)r4c8 | (2)r4J3 => (-2)r5c8 | (2)r5J7 => (-2)r6c9 | (7)J3r5 => (-7)r5c9 | (7)c6J8 => (-7)r7c4[21,45] r2c5=7 Naked Single[21,46] r2c7=2 Naked Single[21,47] r3c6=8 Naked Single[21,48] r3c7=7 Naked Single[21,49] r4c3=6 Naked Single[21,50] r4c5=9 Naked Single[21,51] r4c8=2 Naked Single[21,52] r5c5=8 Naked Single[21,53] r5c6=9 Naked Single[21,54] r5c8=7 Naked Single[21,55] r5c9=2 Naked Single[21,56] r6c3=2 Naked Single[21,57] r6c4=6 Naked Single[21,58] r6c9=7 Naked Single[21,59] r7c4=9 Naked Single[21,60] r7c6=7 Naked Single[22,61] r2c4=8 Naked Single[22,62] r3c4=2 Naked Single[22,63] r4c2=8 Naked Single[22,64] r4c4=7 Naked Single[23,65] r2c2=6 Naked Single`

Hajime

Posts: 1003
Joined: 20 April 2018
Location: Netherlands

### Re: difference in rating between SE and SJE

Another quick fix (2021.10.26). This should fix the General Intersection problem.
There are other improvements as well, but the changes have not been tested much!
1to9only

Posts: 3992
Joined: 04 April 2018

### Re: difference in rating between SE and SJE

Did a few tests with the 26-10-21 new pre release version.
Code: Select all
`...4.9...31.....57....4.............8...5...6.............2....79.....23...3.5... 111111123144552223145522663445226633455266337456668397458888397488999997889977777`

shows now this(SE 6.6):
Hidden Text: Show

Code: Select all
`.74........9.....5....6..14...........3...6...........24..3....7.....9........19. 111111123144552223145522663445226633455266337456668397458888397488999997889977777`

shows now this(SE 2.9):
Hidden Text: Show

Seems to be correct now, but the major improvement is that you don't have to edit the json file anymore. Pasting a new custom layout and selecting some variants can now be done from the menu.
urhegyi

Posts: 611
Joined: 13 April 2020

### Re: difference in rating between SE and SJE

1to9only wrote:Another quick fix (2021.10.26). This should fix the General Intersection problem.
There are other improvements as well, but the changes have not been tested much!

Looks good to me!

Mathimagics
2017 Supporter

Posts: 1870
Joined: 27 May 2015
Location: Canberra

### Re: difference in rating between SE and SJE

I notice that "serate" as command-line tool doesn't seem to read the json file, unfortunately, but simply relies on options to specify variants. Something for the future, perhaps?

For custom layouts, only the GUI works for rating/analysis.

Mathimagics
2017 Supporter

Posts: 1870
Joined: 27 May 2015
Location: Canberra

### Re: difference in rating between SE and SJE

Mathimagics wrote:I notice that "serate" as command-line tool doesn't seem to read the json file, unfortunately, but simply relies on options to specify variants. Something for the future, perhaps?

The json file is always read. For command-lines (e.g. serate), all variant settings are reset (ignored!), so the dafault serate (with no options specified) is to rate a vanilla sudoku.
So serate behavior is the same in all Explainers.

For anything else, options describe the sudokus being rated.

Code: Select all
`-L    LatinSquare-X    Diagonals-D    DisjointGroups-W    Windoku-A    Asterisk-C    CenterDot-G    Girandola-H    Halloween-P    PerCent-S    S-doku-U    Custom-V    OddEven`

Also command-lines options are not saved to the json file. So the GUI restarts in its last state.

Mathimagics wrote:For custom layouts, only the GUI works for rating/analysis.

For cUstom and oddeVen sudokus, the json file is read, so the layout is loaded.
Specifying the -U or -V option uses the last saved layout, so command-line serate should work for these as well.
1to9only

Posts: 3992
Joined: 04 April 2018

### Re: difference in rating between SE and SJE

1to9only wrote:For cUstom and oddeVen sudokus, the json file is read, so the layout is loaded.
Specifying the -U or -V option uses the last saved layout, so command-line serate should work for these as well.

Ok, got it! I added -U to my serate run and it then worked fine. (I was actually testing JSB's in this case, but for JS's I would need to also add the -L option, right?)

Again, well done!

It is nice to have 9x9 Jigsaw support accepted back into the mainstream ... even if smuggled in via the rear entrance.

Cheers
MM

Mathimagics
2017 Supporter

Posts: 1870
Joined: 27 May 2015
Location: Canberra

### Re: difference in rating between SE and SJE

1to9only wrote:Another quick fix (2021.10.26). This should fix the General Intersection problem.

I've checked a few of my other Explainers - so far, I've only found Sukaku6x6Explainer needs the fix applied.
1to9only

Posts: 3992
Joined: 04 April 2018

### Re: difference in rating between SE and SJE

1to9only wrote:
1to9only wrote:Another quick fix (2021.10.26). This should fix the General Intersection problem.

I've checked a few of my other Explainers - so far, I've only found Sukaku6x6Explainer needs the fix applied.

Can you explain the difference in solving approach between SE and SJE based on this example?
Code: Select all
`..9...5....1...3..78.....92...........................63.....49..4...2....6...4.. 111111123456616123456666223456622223455577323445777333445577778499998888999998888`

SE:
Hidden Text: Show

SJE:
Hidden Text: Show
urhegyi

Posts: 611
Joined: 13 April 2020

### Re: difference in rating between SE and SJE

I have not checked the example given.

If you check the solution paths, they will be different. This is due to the solving order of Singles and Subsets and Intersections.

In SJE:
- Blocks (3x3) (if JSB), then Jigsaws (Irregular Regions) are checked - rating ED=1.2.
- Then Columns, Rows, and Variants (X) - rating ED=1.5

In SE:
- Blocks (3x3) (if not Latin Square) are checked - rating ED=1.2.
- Then Columns, Rows, and Variants (X,W,DG,etc. AND Jigsaws (Extra Regions)) - rating ED=1.5.

The pencilmarks are different enough that the grid is solved differently by SE/SJE. Otherwise the code for SE and SJE are very similar.

Edited: see colored text.
Last edited by 1to9only on Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
1to9only

Posts: 3992
Joined: 04 April 2018

### Re: difference in rating between SE and SJE

1to9only wrote:I have not checked the example given.

If you check the solution paths, they will be different. This is due to the solving order of Singles and Subsets.

In SJE:
- Blocks (3x3) (if JSB), then Jigsaws (Irregular Regions) are checked - rating ED=1.2.
- Then Columns, Rows, and Variants (X) - rating ED=1.5

In SE:
- Blocks (3x3) (if not Latin Square) are checked - rating ED=1.2.
- Then Columns, Rows, and Variants (X,W,DG,etc. AND Jigsaws (Extra Regions)) - rating ED=1.5.

The pencilmarks are different enough that the grid is solved differently by SE/SJE. Otherwise the code for SE and SJE are very similar.

My question was how it comes that SE uses 3 times claiming technique(SE 2.8) and SJE 8 times pointing(SE 2.6) on the same puzzle.
urhegyi

Posts: 611
Joined: 13 April 2020

Next