by gurth » Thu Sep 14, 2006 8:40 am
Sorry, guys, I should have told you to read my "Aesthetics of Sudoku" which I posted simultaneously with this one, thinking you would all read it. A serious miscalculation on my part, obviously! There you will find a proper definition of what I mean by pearl. As it is, you have got hold of the wrong end of the stick.
Those who have read it should read it again : I have just added another posting on the subject.
Specifically:
Ronk,
thanks for the tip re format.
udosuk,
if your statement re r3c2 being 7,8 or 6 is true, then I feel inclined to state that you have already solved the problem. MY problem is this : how much credit do you deserve for that solution? If your program pointed it out to you, then I would say you get no marks for the solution, but plenty of marks for all the interesting points re magic and backdoor cells that you have raised.
But if you did some work of your own to arrive at your testing of that specific cell, then it is another matter. That is why I have said (on another thread in Advanced Techniques) that it is of interest to know HOW a solution is reached, not just to be given a solution.
I like your definitions for "pearl" and "diamond", but please bear in mind (as I explained in my "Aesthetics...") that a pearl MUST have no redundant clues, so you can't convert any puzzle into a pearl simply by adding a clue or two. That would cheapen the value of pearls too much!
Also, pearls can be small, i.e. allow "advanced" methods for solving the first cell, as long as these methods are more "advanced" than subsets and locked candidates.
Another point I would like to make here is that it is not all that important that a puzzle be a pearl anyway. It's just an aesthetic gloss. Far more important is the difficulty of the puzzle as a whole. What are you going to call an ultra-difficult puzzle, if you have used up "diamond" already? Is not a diamond the ultimate?
The point you ask : re a special term for a backdoor cell where inputting any incorrect candidate will lead to contradiction under a certain technique set, is I think something worth thinking about. Because an ordinary backdoor cell may not acceptably be used to solve a puzzle (as ravel drummed into me!), whereas there can be no objection to using a cell such as you describe, if the contradictions are also proved. I suggest a "ruby cell". Then we can say that G910 has a ruby cell.
While you are talking about "T&E/brute-force players/programs", I would like to know, what about "programs players"? What I mean is, how far is the assistance of programs legitimate? Programs can now solve any puzzle. Does that mean that a player can just submit his program solution as his solution? What would be the point? It really seems to me that there is not much point in people submitting solutions any more. Does that spell the death of Sudoku? Please, folk, I need reassurance on this one, if you can find any for me.
Maria, it might interest you to know that on my "home" forum, by which I mean simply the forum on which I have posted most, I have already embraced your k9 notation on the grounds of its superior readability amongst other things. I learnt this from perusing your solution to Ocean's puzzle. But I've gone further than you. Where you write "e4=3, e9!=3, ef8=12, " , I write, even more briefly, " 3e4, -3e9, 12ef8, ".