Extreme Puzzle No.5

Post puzzles for others to solve here.

Re: Extreme Puzzle No.5

Postby denis_berthier » Mon May 04, 2020 6:16 am

yzfwsf wrote:Now I can guarantee to generate puzzles of SE9.1 ~ 9.3 in 1 minute, generally no more than 30 seconds.

That's great !
denis_berthier
2010 Supporter
 
Posts: 1691
Joined: 19 June 2007
Location: Paris

Re: Extreme Puzzle No.5

Postby yzfwsf » Mon May 04, 2020 7:05 am

denis_berthier wrote:If you have similar collections for skfr = 9.2 and skfr = 9.4, I'm curious to see how the proportion of puzzles in T&E(1) varies.


Please download 3 attachments, remove '. 7z' and unzip from '9+.7z.001'
9+.7z.001.7z
(256 KiB) Downloaded 18 times

9+.7z.002.7z
(256 KiB) Downloaded 17 times

9+.7z.003.7z
(145.87 KiB) Downloaded 17 times
yzfwsf
 
Posts: 252
Joined: 16 April 2019

Re: Extreme Puzzle No.5

Postby denis_berthier » Wed May 06, 2020 9:22 am

yzfwsf wrote:
denis_berthier wrote:If you have similar collections for skfr = 9.2 and skfr = 9.4, I'm curious to see how the proportion of puzzles in T&E(1) varies.
Please download 3 attachments, remove '. 7z' and unzip from '9+.7z.001'
9+.7z.001.7z

9+.7z.002.7z

9+.7z.003.7z


Hi yzfwsf
Thanks for this new collection of 30,000 puzzles.
The analysis shows that
- 29918 are in T&E(1),
- 73 in gT&E(1) = T&E(B1, 1)
- the remaining 9 in B2B = T&R(B2, 1)

This tends to confirm the impression I had after analysing the first collection: a much larger proportion of them are in T&E(1) than usually appears with SER > 9.1 puzzles.
We have the puzzling result that your generator finds puzzles with higher SER than the top-down ones, but most of them remain in T&E(1) even though their SER would suggest they are beyond.

There appears some obscure point: the relationship between skrf and SER. I don't use skfr, but if I remember well, it was supposed to be a faster version of SER. But I see that many puzzles in both collections with the same skfr happen to have largely different SER.
denis_berthier
2010 Supporter
 
Posts: 1691
Joined: 19 June 2007
Location: Paris

Re: Extreme Puzzle No.5

Postby yzfwsf » Wed May 06, 2020 10:13 am

Hi denis_berthier:
champagne wrote:After the test run, skfr should very often rate in that area .1 or .2 below SE.
The reason is that SE fails very often in looking for the shortest path toward it's own rule.

I have however the following problem that could lead sometimes to a +0.1 in skfr rating.

In the dynamic process, you have many ways to establish a false for a candidate.
Depending on the order in which you develop the chains, it can be that the best possibility toward SE final count is not seen when I start the reverse search.

The test run in the "dynamic" area has moreover 4 goals:

a) check that the process works properly
b) check that the count is done strictly following SE rules
c) check that lower rating in skfr are justified
d) explain higher rating in skfr

I think a) is ok now up to level 2 and I start test for level 3.
All other items are still requiring comparative tests that need a lot of hand work.
At the end, d) should be the exception.
champagne

tarek wrote:I know this may open a can of worms but I thought that with the work on the Sukaku explainer (which doubles up as sudoku explainer as well), there could be a scope for SE ratings / Resolution rule order / Resolution rule addition/deletion.

The current rules & ratings (which occasionally) overlap are:
Code: Select all
1.0: Last value in block, row or column
1.2: Hidden Single in block
1.5: Hidden Single in row or column
1.7: Direct Pointing
1.9: Direct Claiming
2.0: Direct Hidden Pair
2.3: Naked Single
2.5: Direct Hidden Triplet
2.6: Pointing
2.8: Claiming
3.0, 3.2, 3.4: Naked Pair, X-Wing, Hidden Pair
3.6, 3.8, 4.0: Naked Triplet, Swordfish, Hidden Triplet
4.2, 4.4: XY-Wing, XYZ-Wing
4.5 - 5.0: Unique rectangles and loops
5.0, 5.2, 5.4: Naked Quad, Jellyfish, Hidden Quad
5.6 - 6.0: Bivalue Universal Graves
6.2: Aligned Pair Exclusion
6.5 - 7.5: Bidirectioal X-Cycles and Y-Cycles
6.6 - 7.6: Forcing X-Chains
7.0 - 8.0: Forcing Chains, Bidirectional Cycles
7.5 - 8.5: Nishio
8.0 - 9.0: Cell/Region Forcing Chains
8.5 - 9.5: Dynamic Forcing Chains
9.0 - 10.0: Dynamic Forcing Chains (+)
> 9.5: Nested Forcing Chains


I'll start by 1st suggesting a change towards the lower end of the ratings as follows:
Code: Select all
1.2: Hidden single (1.5 if not in block)
1.6: Naked single//2.3 ---> 1.6
1.7: Direct Pointing
1.9: Direct Claiming
2.0: Direct Hidden Pair
2.6: Pointing
2.8: Claiming
2.9: Hidden pair//3.4 ---> 2.9
3.0: Direct Hidden Triplet//2.5 ---> 3.0
3.1, 3.2: Naked pair, X-Wing//3.0 ---> 3.1
3.6, 3.8, 4.0: Naked triplet, Hidden triplet, Swordfish//3.8 ---> 4.0 4.0 ---> 3.8
4.2, 4.4: XY-Wing, XYZ-Wing
4.5 - 5.0: Unique Rectangles and Loops
5.0, 5.2, 5.4: Naked quad, Hidden quad, Jellyfish//5.2 ---> 5.4 5.4 ---> 5.2
5.6 - 6.0: Bivalue Universal Graves
6.2: Aligned Pair Exclusion
6.5 - 7.5: X-Cycles, Y-Cycles
6.6 - 7.6: Forcing X-Chains
7.0 - 8.0: Forcing Chains, XY-Cycles
7.5: Aligned Triplet Exclusion
7.5 - 8.5: Nishio
8.0 - 9.0: Multiple chains
8.5 - 9.5: Dynamic chains
9.0 - 10.0: Dynamic chains (+)
>9.5: Nested Forcing Chains


One thing I was considering is increasing the space between the current ratings through multiplying all the current ratings by 10 … But then: should we allow overlapping as it is happening now or not? The increase in space can allow adding more techniques in the future if needed …
tarek

I think ser9.1 ~ 9.3 fall into T & E (1), which should be a normal phenomenon, because as mentioned above,T & E (1) and T & E (2) overlap in 9.0 ~ 9.5 in SudokuExplainer

BTW:Few 10+ puzzle for you
Hidden Text: Show
2.4...8...5...8.6....2....96..3...1..4..5.6....7..4..54...2......31...9..6...37.. 104/12/12
.2...76....52....78..36....7..9..8..9.2....7..8...1..9.1..5..4.4.8..31....6.....8 102/12/12
4..6.......7..94...9..7.....3..2...4..87....22....5.6.5..8..1....1.4..3..8...1.4. 102/102/96
..2....4.59....7...3..6...5.4...1..3...6....7....4.9..1...9.5...6...5..1..4.3..9. 105/12/12
.2..9......57.......9..6.3.....8.2.6.1.4....7..8..1....6...9.4...1.4...58..5..9.. 104/12/12
.....6..1..5.7....9..4...2..2..8.3..1.......8..6..5.4.....9...4..2..7.6..3.8..7.. 104/104/92
6....92....9.5...654.6...1.2..5..6....1.4..9..6.......1.....9...7.8...4...4.6...7 103/12/12
..5..6.7.47.9.....9...7.1..1..4...2..2...3.....8.1...32...3..9...68..3.......4..5 102/12/12
8....9....7.2.8.....1.6..8..4.3....91......7...3.1.2...5...2.6...2...4..6...9...3 101/12/12
.1...9..86..4..3....5.7..2.1....6.8..6..9.1....83....6..1..4..3.2.9..8..7...8..5. 101/12/12
4....95...6.3....9..9..4.2.1...4.....4...1..7..28...1..3.1....25...2.7....8..3.6. 104/104/78
..29...3..3..6.4..5....2..93..8....7..1.7..8..7....6..4..6......2...3........9.15 105/105/26
.1.....7.5...2...8.....93....4..5..72..8..4...8.....9..2..7...5..73...1.6....4... 104/12/12
.....74......1...21..2...8..5..2.9..3....4..56.87.....5...9...3.3.6..2....4....9. 104/104/84
.2......1..86...5.9.....8....79...8..4..3.9..8....1...6..3...7..5...42....3.5.... 104/104/34
....6...95....34...7.8...2...3.5.2...2......11....4.6.6...7.1...1.9....2..2..6.7. 103/12/12
..5.3...8.....65..3..8..21......8.7.9..5....1.4..7.6...6.41..2....6....9..1..7... 102/12/12
.2...7..3..82..6..4...6.....1...2.5.8..1.......2.4.3....48....2..7.5..9.9.....4.. 102/12/12
6.....8....3.2..5..9...6..71..7....9.....45....2.8..7..3.5..7....6.3..4.5....1..3 102/12/12
.1...9.8...58....4....3.7..1..5...6...8.2.....7...15..4..........3.8...2.6.7...9. 102/12/12
21.3....7.....26....6.7..1..6..8.7....57....37....4.6.9.....8....3.....4.7.5...9. 101/12/12
.3.6....2....31.9..8..9....7..9....3.1...62...45.7....1...2.6.......3..7..27...19 101/12/12
..8..2..3..3.1..4..5.4..8.14.5..9.6..1.6.......6...3..3....64....192.....8......6 101/12/12
.....6...4..5.2.7..5......4....9.2..5.4.....97...2..6.2..7..9.......4..6.83....5. 101/12/12
yzfwsf
 
Posts: 252
Joined: 16 April 2019

Re: Extreme Puzzle No.5

Postby denis_berthier » Wed May 06, 2020 1:14 pm

yzfwsf wrote:I think ser9.1 ~ 9.3 fall into T & E (1), which should be a normal phenomenon, because as mentioned above,T & E (1) and T & E (2) overlap in 9.0 ~ 9.5 in SudokuExplainer

And I have some doubts about any equivalence such as forcing-chains <=> T&E(1) or nested-forcing-chains <=> T&E(2)
denis_berthier
2010 Supporter
 
Posts: 1691
Joined: 19 June 2007
Location: Paris

Re: Extreme Puzzle No.5

Postby m_b_metcalf » Thu May 07, 2020 10:53 am

tarek wrote:
denis_berthier wrote:AFAIK, there's been no study on any correlation between maximum number of clues per house and difficulty.

The 3 clue per house makes it more likely that boxes would display a "Diagonal pattern of clues": Which essentially can be mapped on an "X". Puzzles with boxes displaying these diagonal patterns are associated with higher SE difficulty rating.
Out of curiosity, I generated random grids and then took out all clues not on mini-diagonals, thus:
Code: Select all
 7 . 3 2 . 8 4 . 1
 . 2 . . 6 . . 3 .
 4 . 1 7 . 3 2 . 8
 2 . 6 5 . 7 1 . 9
 . 7 . . 1 . . 2 .
 8 . 4 9 . 2 6 . 5
 3 . 2 1 . 4 9 . 6
 . 9 . . 2 . . 4 .
 6 . 5 3 . 9 7 . 2

I then removed further clues at random until the result was minimal and kept only those passing an internal filter that corresponds to ~SE8.4. This I repeated for 10 minutes and applied SE to the 52 puzzles generated. Of these, 27 were >=SE 9.0, examples being
Code: Select all
 . . 1 2 . 3 4 . 5
 . . . . 1 . . 3 .
 . . . 6 . . . . .
 6 . 5 7 . . . . 8
 . 1 . . 8 . . 2 .
 . . 2 . . . 9 . .
 . . . 3 . . . . .
 . . . . . . . 9 .
 3 . 7 . . 4 1 . 6   ED=9.0/2.3/2.3

 . . 1 2 . 3 . . .
 . 4 . . 5 . . 3 .
 . . 6 . . 7 . . .
 1 . . . . . 8 . .
 . 8 . . 2 . . 4 .
 . . 9 . . 8 3 . .
 2 . . 6 . . 4 . 5
 . . . . . . . 2 .
 6 . 5 . . . . . 7   ED=9.1/1.2/1.2

 1 . . . . 2 3 . .
 . 4 . . 5 . . . .
 . . 6 7 . 1 4 . .
 3 . . . . 5 2 . .
 . . . . 7 . . 3 .
 7 . 8 2 . . . . 6
 . . 2 . . 9 . . 8
 . . . . 2 . . 9 .
 . . 5 1 . . 6 . .   ED=9.2/9.2/6.7

Using biased patterns does seem to be an interesting approach.

Regards,

Mike
User avatar
m_b_metcalf
2017 Supporter
 
Posts: 11218
Joined: 15 May 2006
Location: Berlin

Re: Extreme Puzzle No.5

Postby yzfwsf » Fri May 08, 2020 7:04 am

m_b_metcalf wrote:Out of curiosity, I generated random grids and then took out all clues not on mini-diagonals, thus:
Code: Select all
 7 . 3 2 . 8 4 . 1
 . 2 . . 6 . . 3 .
 4 . 1 7 . 3 2 . 8
 2 . 6 5 . 7 1 . 9
 . 7 . . 1 . . 2 .
 8 . 4 9 . 2 6 . 5
 3 . 2 1 . 4 9 . 6
 . 9 . . 2 . . 4 .
 6 . 5 3 . 9 7 . 2

I'm curious how you got this non minimal puzzle and how much time it took?
yzfwsf
 
Posts: 252
Joined: 16 April 2019

Re: Extreme Puzzle No.5

Postby denis_berthier » Fri May 08, 2020 8:06 am

yzfwsf wrote:
m_b_metcalf wrote:Out of curiosity, I generated random grids and then took out all clues not on mini-diagonals, thus:
Code: Select all
 7 . 3 2 . 8 4 . 1
 . 2 . . 6 . . 3 .
 4 . 1 7 . 3 2 . 8
 2 . 6 5 . 7 1 . 9
 . 7 . . 1 . . 2 .
 8 . 4 9 . 2 6 . 5
 3 . 2 1 . 4 9 . 6
 . 9 . . 2 . . 4 .
 6 . 5 3 . 9 7 . 2

I'm curious how you got this non minimal puzzle and how much time it took?


When you take any complete grid and you randomly delete any set of 33 values as here, that leaves 48 givens. The probability that the resulting puzzle has more than one solution (Ie. any solution other than the initial complete grid) is so close to 0 that it's impossible to compute. As a result, the time it took is equal to the time for generating a full grid.
[Edit]: this is true only for random deletions. In the present case, the deleted clues are in fixed cells. I would bet the result is true in the present case, but there are probably counter-examples with other specific deletion templates (such as if you delete a full band).
denis_berthier
2010 Supporter
 
Posts: 1691
Joined: 19 June 2007
Location: Paris

Re: Extreme Puzzle No.5

Postby m_b_metcalf » Fri May 08, 2020 9:08 am

denis_berthier wrote:
yzfwsf wrote:
m_b_metcalf wrote:Out of curiosity, I generated random grids and then took out all clues not on mini-diagonals, thus:
Code: Select all
 7 . 3 2 . 8 4 . 1
 . 2 . . 6 . . 3 .
 4 . 1 7 . 3 2 . 8
 2 . 6 5 . 7 1 . 9
 . 7 . . 1 . . 2 .
 8 . 4 9 . 2 6 . 5
 3 . 2 1 . 4 9 . 6
 . 9 . . 2 . . 4 .
 6 . 5 3 . 9 7 . 2

I'm curious how you got this non minimal puzzle and how much time it took?


When you take any complete grid and you randomly delete any set of 33 values as here, that leaves 48 givens. The probability that the resulting puzzle has more than one solution (Ie. any solution other than the initial complete grid) is so close to 0 that it's impossible to compute. As a result, the time it took is equal to the time for generating a full grid.
[Edit]: this is true only for random deletions. In the present case, the deleted clues are in fixed cells. I would bet the result is true in the present case, but there are probably counter-examples with other specific deletion templates (such as if you delete a full band).


This is rather curious. In order to answer the questions, I made two tests. The first was to measure how long it takes to generate a random grid. This turns out to be 28 microseconds. To delete 36 clues leaving 45 is trivial. But then I checked how many of the resulting puzzles have more than one solution and the answer was not, as Denis and I expected, close to 0, but 31%! I was very surprised. The reason is due to the regularity of the deletions. For the grid above, one of the two solutions is
Code: Select all
  7  6* 3  2  5* 8  4  9* 1
  9  2  8  4  6  1  5  3  7
  4  5* 1  7  9* 3  2  6* 8
  2  3  6  5  4  7  1  8  9
  5  7  9  8  1  6  3  2  4
  8  1  4  9  3  2  6  7  5
  3  8  2  1  7  4  9  5  6
  1  9  7  6  2  5  8  4  3
  6  4  5  3  8  9  7  1  2

where an uncovered UA6 is marked.

Regards,

Mike
User avatar
m_b_metcalf
2017 Supporter
 
Posts: 11218
Joined: 15 May 2006
Location: Berlin

Re: Extreme Puzzle No.5

Postby denis_berthier » Fri May 08, 2020 9:48 am

m_b_metcalf wrote: But then I checked how many of the resulting puzzles have more than one solution and the answer was not, as Denis and I expected, close to 0, but 31%! I was very surprised. The reason is due to the regularity of the deletions.

That's very interesting. I was almost certain that this pattern had nothing special wrt to uniqueness.

It may be interesting to understand if / how this is related to puzzles being harder.
denis_berthier
2010 Supporter
 
Posts: 1691
Joined: 19 June 2007
Location: Paris

Re: Extreme Puzzle No.5

Postby denis_berthier » Sat May 09, 2020 6:39 am

Mauriès Robert wrote:
denis_berthier wrote:I have a pure pattern-based resolution path. I will give it later, after more people give this puzzle a try. It is worth it.

I have already made a resolution by hand, I hope to give it soon.

I'm still curious to see your findings
denis_berthier
2010 Supporter
 
Posts: 1691
Joined: 19 June 2007
Location: Paris

Re: Extreme Puzzle No.5

Postby Mauriès Robert » Sat May 09, 2020 7:56 am

Hi Denis,
I'm moving on, I'm moving on... but as I'm very busy , I'm not finished yet.
I'm at 26 steps from 6 to 20 sequences, because I don't want to use extension (OR) or direct contradictions.
As soon as I'm done, I'll put it online.
I can send you these steps by private message if you want to see what I've done already.
Thank you for your interest.
Robert
Mauriès Robert
 
Posts: 353
Joined: 07 November 2019
Location: France

Re: Extreme Puzzle No.5

Postby denis_berthier » Sat May 09, 2020 8:16 am

Mauriès Robert wrote:I can send you these steps by private message if you want to see what I've done already.

I can wait for the complete answer. I was just wondering about how TDP would help you deal with this.
denis_berthier
2010 Supporter
 
Posts: 1691
Joined: 19 June 2007
Location: Paris

Re: Extreme Puzzle No.5

Postby Mauriès Robert » Sun May 10, 2020 10:59 am

Hi all,
Here is my resolution (by hand) with TDP.
In this resolution I have imposed on myself not to use the direct contradiction, nor the OR (bifurcation) condition.
Some sequences can be avoided and thus reduce the number of steps, but working by hand, I did not rethink the resolution to remove them.
With the OR (bifurcation) condition, solving this puzzle is obviously faster.
Robert

resolution: Show
Note that the different nested brackets "memorize" the elements of the sub-strings.

With two conjugated tracks:
1) P(9r2c3) : 9r2c3->2r7c3->(2r5c7 & 2r9c9)->34r7c79 and P(9r8c3) : [9r8c3->9r9c8->(8r8c8 & 9r9c7)]->9r2c1
=> -9r3c12, -9r2c8, -34r8c8, -4r9c8.
With successive anti-tracks:
2) P'(3r8c4) : (-3r8c4) => (3r8c7->89r89c8->5r9c9->2r9c1->2r2c3->9r8c3)->8r8c8 => -8r8c4.
3) E=7b1p238
P'(E) : (-E) => { 8r1c3->36r13c2->(3r6c1->9r6c2)->[(7r6c8->45r4c78) & (7r9c2->7r7c6->6r4c6)] }->8r9c6->8r7c1->7r4c1
=> -7r23c1.
4) E={1r4c3, 1r8c5, 9r8c3}
P'(E) : (-E) =>{ [9r2c3 & (1r4c4->1r9c5->7r79c6)]->7r2c8->7r4c7 }->48r4c13->1r5c3
=> -1r8c3 =>-1r56c2.
5) E={7r1c3, 1r4c3}
P'(E) : (-E) =>{ [(8r1c3 & 1r5c3)->(1r4c4->6r4c6)->8r5c5]->8r4c1 }->4r4c3 => -7r4c3.
6) E={9r3c7, 7r4c7}
P'(E) : (-E) => 9r8c7->9r2c3->[(2r7c3 & 7r1c3)->2r9c9->(5r89c8->37r26c8)->4r4c8->7r6c8->7r4c1]->7r7c6->7r3c5
=> -7r3c7.
7) E={8r1c3, 2r3c1}
P'(E) : (-E) => [(29r2c13 & 7r1c3)->7r4c7->79r6c12->3r5c2]->3r3c1 => -8r3c1.
8) P'(3r5c2) : (-3r5c2) =>8r5c2->(8r1c3->14r45c3)->9r8c3->9r2c1->9r6c2 => -3r6c2.
9) E={9r9c8, 5r4c8}
P'(E) : (-E) => { [(47r4c8 & 9r8c78)->(9r2c3->2r7c3)->7r1c3->7r4c7]->4r4c8->4r5c3 }->8r8c3->8r9c8 => -5r9c8
10) P'(7r1c37) : (-7r1c37) => { [(8r1c3->14r4c3->9r8c3->9r2c1) & (7r4c7->79r6c12->3r5c2)]->[(8r4c1->8r5c5->8r3c4) & 3r3c1]->2r3c5 }->4r1c5
=> -7r1c5.
11) P'(3r8c4) : (-3r8c4) => 3r8c7->5r9c9->2r9c1->4r9c45 => -4r8c4.
12) E={3r8c4, 3r2c4}
P'(E) : (-E) => [(3r8c7->5r9c9->2r9c1->2r2c3->5r2c4)->5r8c5->5r4c6->6r7c6]->3r7c4 => -3r3c4.
13) E={8r8c8, 5r26c8}
P'(E) : (-E) => { {5r2c46->48r1c5} & { 8r9c8->9r8c78->9r2c3->2r7c3->[ (2r9c9->5r8c78) & (7r1c3->7r4c7->79r6c12->3r5c2)->68r13c2 ] }->1r8c2->48r8c5 }->86r4c46->5r4c8
=> -5r8c8 => r3c7=9.
14) P'(8r8c8) : (-8r8c8) => 9r8c8->(9r2c3->2r7c2)->7r1c2->8r13c2 => -8r8c2.
15) E={7r1c3, 7r2c68}
P'(E) : (-E) => { [(2r2c4->2r3c1) & (8r1c3->14r45c3)->9r8c3->9r2c1->9r6c2)]->3r6c1->(8r5c2 & 7r4c1->7r1c7->7r3c5) }->8r3c4->8r4c6->6r7c6->7r9c6->7r7c3
=> -7r2c3.
16) P'(3r5c3) : (-3r5c2) => [(8r5c2->8r1c3->7r7c3->2r2c3->9r8c3)->1r9c2]->6r8c2->6r1c9->6r5c8 => -3r5c8.
17) P'(3r5c3) : (-3r5c2) => { [3r6c1->9r6c2->7r4c1->7r1c7] & [(8r5c2->8r1c3->7r7c3->2r2c3->9r8c3)->1r9c2]->6r8c2 }->3r1c2 => -3r3c2.
18) E={3r1c2, 7r1c3}
P'(E) : (-E) =>{ { { (3r5c2 & 8r1c3)->[(8r4c1->8r5c5) & (14r45c3->9r8c3->2r2c3) & (8r9c2->1r8c2) & 45r1c5] }->8r3c4->8r7c6->(6r4c6 & 45r8c5) }->5r46c4->3r2c4->3r8c7->5r8c5->4r1c5 }->75r1c67
=> -7r1c2.
19) E={3r8c4, 6r4c4}
P'(E) : (-E) => { [(3r8c7->5r9c9->2r9c1->2r2c3->9r8c3->9r2c1->9r6c2->7r46c1) & 6r4c6]->5r12c6->3r2c4->3r6c6->7r7c3->7r3c2->7r12c6->7r9c5 }->8r9c6->1r9c2->6r8c2
=> -6r8c4.
20) P'(6r8c1) : [(6r8c2->1r9c2)->9r6c2->7r46c1]->7r7c3->2r2c3->9r2c1 => -9r8c1.
21) E={6r8c1, 8r8c8}
P'(E) : (-E) => { [(9r8c8->9r2c3->2r7c3->34r7c79) & (6r8c2->6r3c1)]->(2r2c1->3r6c1)->9r6c2->7r4c1 }->8r7c1 => -8r8c1.
22) E={1r8c2, 8r13c2}
P'(E) : (-E) => { [(1r8c2->6r8c1) & (8r1c3->7r7c3->2r2c3->9r8c3->8r8c8)]->[(3r3c1 & 35r28c4 & 45r18c5)->5r4c6->47r4c78->6r5c8]->47r34c8->7r2c6 ->8r9c6
=> -8r9c2.
23) E={2r7c3, 8r1c3}
P'(E) : (-E) => { [(2r2c3->9r8c3->9r2c1->9r6c2) & 7r1c3]->[(7r9c2 & 1r8c2)->(7r7c6 & 6r4c6)->7r3c5] }->2r3c4 & 35r28c4->8r4c4->8r5c3
=> -8r7c3.
24) E={7r7c3, 4r7c79}
P'(E) : (-E) => { [7r1c3 & 45b9p49->(3r8c4 & 2r7c79->2r2c3->9r8c3->9r2c1->9r6c2) ]->7r9c2->7r7c6->6r4c6 }->[(5r2c4->5r6c5->5r8c7->4r9c9) & (7r3c4->2r3c4->4r1c5)]->4r7c4
=> -4r7c3.
25) P'(3r5c2) : (-3r5c2) => { { 8r5c2->(3r6c1 & 8r1c3)->[(7r3c2->9r6c2)->1r9c2]->6r8c2->(4r8c1 & 6r3c1) }->[(7r6c8 & 34r3c89)->5r2c8]->4r4c8->5r4c7 }->3r8c7
=> -3r5c7.
26) P'(2r5c7) : (-2r5c7) => 2r7c7->7r7c3->[8r1c3 & (7r3c2->9r6c2)->1r9c2->6r8c2-4r8c1]->7r4c1->45r4c78 => -4r5c7 => r5c7=2.
27) P'(5r8c7) : (-5r8c7) => (5r9c9->2r9c1->7r7c3->[(7r3c2->9r6c2)->1r9c2]->6r8c2->4r8c1 => -4r8c7.
28) P'(2r9c9) : { (-2r9c9) => 2r7c9->7r7c3->{ [(8r1c3 & 7r3c2)->9r6c2]->1r9c2->6r8c2->(4r8c1 & 6r1c9) }->7r4c1->3r6c1->3r5c9 }->4r3c9
=> -4r9c9 => -4r7c14.
29) E={8r1c3, 8r5c5}
P'(E) : (-E) => { { [7r1c3->(7r4c7 & 2r7c3->2r9c9->5r8c7)] & (1r5c5->8r4c46) }->4r4c1->4r8c3 }->8r8c5 => -8r1c5.
30) P'(4r9c4) : (-4r9c4) => 4r3c4->5r1c5->5r2c8->7r2c6->7r9c5 => -4r9c5.
31) P'(7r4c7) : (-7r4c7) => { 7r1c7->[(7r3c2 & 8r1c3->8r5c2)->9r6c2->1r9c2]->6r8c2->4r8c1 }->7r4c1 => -7r4c8.
32) P'(7r1c3) : (-7r1c3) => 8r1c3->8r5c2->(3r6c1->9r6c2)->7r6c8->7r1c7 => -7r1c6.
33) P'(7r1c7) : (-7r1c7) => 7r1c3->2r7c3->2r9c9->5r8c7 => -5r1c7.
34) P'(4r4c8) : (-4r4c8) => 5r4c8->5r1c9->6r1c2->3r5c2->79r6C12->7r4c7 => -4r4c7.
35) P'(2r7c3) : (-2r7c3) => 7r7c3->7r1c7->5r4c7->5r9c9->2r7c9 => -2r7c1
36) E={7r3c2, 46r3c8}
P'(E) : (-E) => { [ 7r1c3->7r4c7->( (79r6c12->3r5c2) & (5r8c5->3r8c4) ) ] & [6r5c8->4r4c8->4r5c3->1r4c3] }->{ 1r5c9 & [(8r8c3 & 68r13c2->6r8c1)->4r8c5->5r1c5->2r2c4->2r6c5] }->1r9c5->7r3c5
=> -7r3c8.
37) P'(1r6c9) : (-1r6c9) => 1r5c9->3r5c2->79r6c12->7r4c7->7r2c8->5r1c9 => -5r6c9
With two conjugated tracks:
38) P(6r1c2) : 6r1c2->3r5c2->79r6c12->7r4c7->7r2c8->5r1c9 and P(6r1c9) : 6r1c9->5r2c8->7r1c7->8r1c3->7r3c2
=> -34r1c9, -3r2c8, -6r3c2, -8r1c2
With successive anti-tracks:
39) P'(4r8c1) : (-4r8c1) => 6r8c1->6r1c2->5r1c9->4r1c5->4r9c4 => -4r9c1 => r9c4=4.
40) P'(7r3c5) : (-7r3c5) => { [7r3c2->(8r1c3 & 9r6c2)]->1r9c2 }->6r8c2->3r1c2->5r1c6->4r1c5 => -4r3c5 => r1c5=4 & r7c7=4.
With two conjugated tracks:
41) P(5r1c6) : 5r1c6->8r1c3->7r1c7->5r4c7 and P(5r1c9) : 5r1c9->6r1c2->6r8c1->4r4c1->5r4c8->7r4c7->3r1c7
=> -5r6c8 & -5r4c46 => r6c9=1 and -3r1c6 => -3r2c1, -2r2c4, -2r3c1.
With anti-track:
42) P'(6r7c4) : (-6r7c4) => 6r7c6->3r2c6->5r2c4->5r1c9->5r8c7->3r8c4 => -3r7c4.
With two conjugated tracks and end:
43) P(3r5c2) : 3r5c2->8r3c2->2r3c4->2r6c5 and P(8r5c2) : 8r5c2->1r5c5->(1r8c4->3r2c4)->5r6c4->2r6c5
=> r6c5=2 => solution with singles.
Last edited by Mauriès Robert on Sun May 10, 2020 3:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Mauriès Robert
 
Posts: 353
Joined: 07 November 2019
Location: France

Re: Extreme Puzzle No.5

Postby Ajò Dimonios » Sun May 10, 2020 2:41 pm

Hi Robert.

Beautiful resolution of a very difficult scheme.
Paolo
Ajò Dimonios
 
Posts: 203
Joined: 07 November 2019

PreviousNext

Return to Puzzles