Having just gone through many posts in this section including some from last year, it appears no 'super-solver' exists. And I'm still waiting on inventor to share the super-technique that was alluded to over a year ago.
Mike Barber did some nice work on heirarchy of techniques on 25000 random puzzles. In the end though, after listing 49 different techniques, he was still only 92+% successful in solving the puzzle.
The question is: Has anybody done an analysis of how many techniques it would take to solve 75, 80, or even 90% of all random generated puzzles?
Based on his data, every technique that you add has a smaller and smaller impact on the number of puzzles solved.
For those that don't use computer solving programs, knowing they can solve 85-90% of puzzles with the first eight to ten techniques might just be good enough.
Any thoughts.