SER = 9.3
My solution is similar to the previous two, though now in gW11.
- Code: Select all
Resolution state after Singles and whips[1]:
+----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
! 2356 156 9 ! 8 134 124 ! 7 1246 12 !
! 23 178 12378 ! 123479 6 12479 ! 5 1249 1289 !
! 4 1678 1278 ! 1279 5 1279 ! 168 1269 3 !
+----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
! 7 14689 1248 ! 12356 1389 12568 ! 134 1359 159 !
! 69 3 5 ! 1467 149 1467 ! 2 8 179 !
! 29 1489 1248 ! 12357 1389 12578 ! 134 13579 6 !
+----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
! 8 579 37 ! 1569 2 1569 ! 136 13567 4 !
! 359 2 34 ! 14569 7 145689 ! 1368 1356 158 !
! 1 457 6 ! 45 48 3 ! 9 257 2578 !
+----------------------+----------------------+----------------------+
214 candidates.
197 g-candidates, 1220 csp-glinks and 704 non-csp glinks
whip[8]: r5n1{c6 c9} - c5n1{r5 r1} - r1n3{c5 c1} - c1n6{r1 r5} - r5n9{c1 c5} - c5n4{r5 r9} - r9n8{c5 c9} - c9n7{r9 .} ==> r4c4≠1
whip[8]: r5n1{c6 c9} - c5n1{r5 r1} - r1n3{c5 c1} - c1n6{r1 r5} - r5n9{c1 c5} - c5n4{r5 r9} - r9n8{c5 c9} - c9n7{r9 .} ==> r4c6≠1
whip[8]: r5n1{c6 c9} - c5n1{r5 r1} - r1n3{c5 c1} - c1n6{r1 r5} - r5n9{c1 c5} - c5n4{r5 r9} - r9n8{c5 c9} - c9n7{r9 .} ==> r6c4≠1
whip[8]: r5n1{c6 c9} - c5n1{r5 r1} - r1n3{c5 c1} - c1n6{r1 r5} - r5n9{c1 c5} - c5n4{r5 r9} - r9n8{c5 c9} - c9n7{r9 .} ==> r6c6≠1
g-whip[8]: r1c9{n2 n1} - r1c6{n1 n4} - r1c5{n4 n3} - c5n1{r1 r456} - r5n1{c6 c5} - c5n4{r5 r9} - r9n8{c5 c9} - r9n2{c9 .} ==> r1c8≠2
g-whip[9]: r1c9{n2 n1} - r1c6{n1 n4} - r1c5{n4 n3} - c5n1{r1 r456} - r5n1{c6 c5} - c5n4{r5 r9} - r9n8{c5 c9} - r8c9{n8 n5} - c1n5{r8 .} ==> r1c1≠2
g-whip[11]: r9c4{n4 n5} - r9c2{n5 n7} - c9n7{r9 r5} - c8n7{r6 r7} - r7n5{c8 c2} - c1n5{r8 r1} - r1n3{c1 c5} - c5n1{r1 r456} - r5n1{c6 c5} - r5n9{c5 c1} - c1n6{r5 .} ==> r9c5≠4
naked-single ==> r9c5=8
g-whip[5]: r1c9{n2 n1} - c5n1{r1 r456} - r5n1{c6 c5} - c5n4{r5 r1} - c8n4{r1 .} ==> r2c8≠2
whip[6]: r6c1{n9 n2} - r2c1{n2 n3} - r1n3{c1 c5} - r6c5{n3 n1} - r5n1{c4 c9} - b6n7{r5c9 .} ==> r6c8≠9
whip[6]: b6n9{r4c9 r5c9} - c1n9{r5 r8} - c1n5{r8 r1} - r1n3{c1 c5} - r4c5{n3 n1} - r5n1{c4 .} ==> r4c2≠9
g-whip[6]: r1c9{n2 n1} - r5n1{c9 c456} - c5n1{r6 r5} - c5n4{r5 r1} - r1n3{c5 c1} - r2c1{n3 .} ==> r2c9≠2
g-whip[6]: c1n5{r8 r1} - r1n3{c1 c5} - c5n4{r1 r5} - r5n9{c5 c9} - r5n1{c9 c456} - c5n1{r4 .} ==> r8c1≠9
hidden-single-in-a-block ==> r7c2=9
g-whip[7]: b6n7{r6c8 r5c9} - r5n1{c9 c456} - r6c5{n1 n9} - r6c1{n9 n2} - r2c1{n2 n3} - c4n3{r2 r4} - r4c5{n3 .} ==> r6c8≠3
whip[7]: r7n5{c6 c8} - r6n5{c8 c4} - r9n5{c4 c2} - r8c1{n5 n3} - r1n3{c1 c5} - r6n3{c5 c7} - r7n3{c7 .} ==> r8c6≠5
whip[7]: c8n3{r8 r4} - r7n3{c8 c3} - r7n7{c3 c8} - b6n7{r6c8 r5c9} - b6n9{r5c9 r4c9} - r4c5{n9 n1} - r5n1{c4 .} ==> r8c7≠3
whip[8]: r1n3{c1 c5} - r2n3{c4 c3} - r2c1{n3 n2} - r6c1{n2 n9} - r6c5{n9 n1} - r4c5{n1 n9} - b6n9{r4c8 r5c9} - r5n1{c9 .} ==> r8c1≠3
singles ==> r8c1=5, r1c2=5
whip[1]: b7n3{r8c3 .} ==> r2c3≠3
hidden-triplets-in-a-block: b9{n2 n5 n7}{r9c8 r9c9 r7c8} ==> r7c8≠6, r7c8≠3, r7c8≠1
whip[5]: b6n7{r5c9 r6c8} - r7n7{c8 c3} - r7n3{c3 c7} - r6c7{n3 n4} - r4c7{n4 .} ==> r5c9≠1
whip[1]: r5n1{c6 .} ==> r4c5≠1, r6c5≠1
naked-pairs-in-a-block: b5{r4c5 r6c5}{n3 n9} ==> r6c4≠3, r5c5≠9, r4c4≠3
stte
wow, looks like the underdog pulled through
i didnt expect this one to work better than Comet Tiamat but im happy with the result nonetheless
denis_berthier wrote:Smallest number of steps and minimum length of chains are contradictory goals. In the present case, you were talking of rating and all the known ratings * are about the hardest step. By applying the fewer steps method, I could probably decrease the number of steps.
(* OK, there are some ratings that add the complexities of each step, but considering that complexity increases exponentially with length, this is totally absurd and I don't consider them.)
[...]
Now, when you consider a new pattern, there's another point to take into account : the return on investment. Let's take a well-known example: J-Exocets. They generally allow several eliminations but they are very rare patterns (contrary to champagne's propaganda). They are also very difficult to find manually (but that's consistent with their ratings in terms of #CSP-Variables). Result: I have them in SudoRules but I never activate them.
Notice that the or3 pattern can only be part of something larger. The question is, which types of complete patterns the or3 can be a part of in order to be useful?
all this talk of complexity scaling has had me thinking about how i'd approach it if i was dedicated enough to make a rigid system. i value efficiency a lot, if a pattern can make several eliminations, or reduce the puzzle to singles, i'd like to be aware of it. it may not be a pleasing deduction every time, but i'd still want to have some weighting for that. so perhaps a point system like this:
for each component of a deduction (CSP-variables/truths) assign 1 point
for the most difficult deduction, the one with the most points, count it twice (if there are multiple highest point moves, they are also counted twice)
tally up all the points, the lower the final score the easier the rating
this would encourage higher complexity but efficient moves, while also penalising frequent use of them. i dont know if this system would work well for every puzzle, but to use the two we've most recently looked at:
Comet Tiamat
gW8 path - 243 points
DFALP path - 55 points
Roman Candle V2
gW11 path - 136 points
FMSHS path - 18 points
very much skewed in my favor obviously because its catered for my preferences (plus i made the puzzles >_>), and would probably need more adjusting too anyway
for instance, the actual methodology of the technique would need to have some importance. an ALS rule deduction can have well over 10 components but then when notated in eureka it uses just two strong links; the ALS itself is vital in how the technique is thought about and applied, less so the cells that make it up. and on the other end of the spectrum, the dual firework ALP may indeed have just 9 components, but it is logically proven by considering one of them as double counted, this should also be adjusted for
such painful details are why i could never devote the time to making a well-rounded complexity system
a bit off topic but just wanted to share these thoughts
Anyway, it's a good thing that your or3 pattern can help find larger patterns with several eliminations.
oh thank you! even if in the future you or others dont end up using particular applications of these patterns, the recognition that it has some worth means a lot to me
