The New Sudoku Players' Forum

[mabel]

I've been reading this forum for a while as well as following the Sudoku story in the press while getting more and more perturbed. My husband says there are far more important things to upset me. He's right of course, but ...

I am not going to get involved in a discussion of copyright issues. The subject of Intellectual Property is complex and this is not the proper forum ("forum", in the legal sense) to discuss it.

When I met with Nikoli again in Tokyo at the end of May, they told me that they were very happy that I had done them the honor of using the word "sudoku". They were amused by the thought that there was a new "Japanese" word in the English language.

And why wouldn't they be happy! Look at the market Pappocom has opened up for them. For example, had you heard of Nikoli or Sudoku before November last year?

- Wayne

I don't know what they told you in May, but it's clear they believe that hand made puzzles are superior to computer generated puzzles and that the flood of low quality puzzles may turn people off in the long run. See what they have to say here:
http://www.nikoli.co.jp/puzzles/1/hand_made_sudoku-e.htm

Elsewhere in this forum you imply that we are old fashioned to assume that your machine made puzzles are not as good as Nikoli's -- but surely there is no reason to believe thay are *superior*? That's illogical, right? I mean, I might make a machine that could make a painting that the novice would be unable to distinguish from an oringinal POLLACK, but I don't think I'd expect anyone to think it was superior.

The idea that the UK public is making best sellers out of books filled with puzzle's squirted out by a computer program is ... unbelievable.

For the record, I'm from the US and I've known about Sudoku and Nikoli for many, many years. Nikoli's puzzles have been published more and more often over the past couple of years in GAMES magazine and are always involved in the annual World Puzzle competitions. It remains to be seen whether Sudoku will gain a similar -- and ridiculous in my opinion -- level of popularity here and other parts of the world similar to that of the UK. Sudoko is just one of 50 or so puzzles that Nikoli publishes -- there are dozens I think are equally or more interesting. Personally, I've found that after a while, solving them becomes very repetitive. The only one's I enjoy solving are *really* hard ones -- the ones that require not just one or two conjectures, but those that require mutliple conjectures, that might take a couple hours and several sheets of paper to solve. Neither Pappocom OR Nikoli makes Sudokus this hard. Some of the Diabolicals in the Telegraph are closer, but you have to look to puzzle competitions and some internet sources for the really hard ones. I suppose it's a difference in the way some people solve puzzles -- some want something to do while they're on the bus -- I want something to do on a rainy sunday instead of a movie. My husband likes to do a dozen of the same puzzles in a row -- I want to do just one for the whole day.

Maybe I should follow your lead -- in order to open the market in the US for you, I think I'll start a company called "Way|neG|ould" that makes a software game called "Pap|poc|om". I won't mention you, your website, your software. I'll go on all the talkshows, interview with all the papers, so that the name "Pap|poc|om" is connected very strongly in people's minds with me, my website, etc. All those people who have never heard of you will hear and see these names over and over. Of course, when you come to the US and try to sell your "Sudoku", everyone will assume that you're trying to rippoff my invention, "Pap|poc|om", just as many people in the UK will think that anything Sudoku that isn't Pappocom -- even if it's from Nikoli -- is ripping YOU off.


Look, you've won. You're a very shrewd business man. Your business model is brilliant and will surely be emulated. You will make 95% of all money generated by Sudoku in all its forms over then next who knows how many years. You needn't be so arrogant about it. You NEVER mention Nikoli, not to say thanks, not to say where you got the name, nothing. You imply ANY OTHER source of Sudoku is not-genuine. You explicity say that puzzles appearing in other newspapers are "sudoku look-alikes". Sir, no. YOUR puzzles are "sudoku look-alikes". Only Nikoli's are genuine.

[Animator]

I don't know what they told you in May, but it's clear they believe that hand made puzzles are superior to computer generated puzzles and that the flood of low quality puzzles may turn people off in the long run. See what they have to say here:
http://www.nikoli.co.jp/puzzles/1/hand_made_sudoku-e.htm

Is it? The only reference to 'quality' on that page I can find is in some user comment... or atleast that's what I guess it is. There are in total three comments on that page, two of them have some sort of relationship with Nikoli, indecated in the title, the second one does not. If he is not part of Nikoli then he obviously cannot speak for them and that makes it a user comment. Therfor the 'they' in your message is incorrect.

Also note that the person talks about a 'poor quality' sudoku. What is a 'poor quality' sudoku? Or how do you check the quality of a sudoku? He sure talks about some program generated puzzles... but without any reference to them, were they Pappocom puzzles? or not? Also, when was that comment made? I see no date, nor a 'last updated' (or anything similar)

Elsewhere in this forum you imply that we are old fashioned to assume that your machine made puzzles are not as good as Nikoli's -- but surely there is no reason to believe thay are *superior*?

Just as there is no reason to believe that hand made sudoku's are superior to computer generated once. As a side note, did you even solve a bunch of sudoku's generated by the Pappocom software? If not, then you have no idea what you are talking about.

For the record, I do solve the Sudoku's published in the Guardian on a regular basis, which are created by Nikoli.

the ones that require not just one or two conjectures, but those that require mutliple conjectures, that might take a couple hours and several sheets of paper to solve. Neither Pappocom OR Nikoli makes Sudokus this hard. Some of the Diabolicals in the Telegraph are closer, but you have to look to puzzle competitions and some internet sources for the really hard ones.

For the record how many 'Very Hard' puzzle did you try that where generated by the Pappocom software? And if the very hard ones are the most fun, then why don't you post the sources to them? or an example of what you are talking about... something you call hard might be in fact easy too another person.

Maybe I should follow your lead -- in order to open the market in the US for you, I think I'll start a company called "Way|neG|ould" that makes a software game called "Pap|poc|om". I won't mention you, your website, your software. I'll go on all the talkshows, interview with all the papers, so that the name "Pap|poc|om" is connected very strongly in people's minds with me, my website, etc. All those people who have never heard of you will hear and see these names over and over.

Until I read this post I never bottered to look up the history of Sudoku, or who originally created it or where it came from.

Yet I knew Nikoli and the fact that it was a Japan puzzle (which I'm about to question next). Just as I heared about 'Dell Puzzle magazine'

Several articles and interview from mention that it is imported from Japan, anyone who is smart enough therefor can realise that he is not the 'creator'.

Next on the list, what is the real origin of Sudoku? I don't know.

According to 'The Observer': http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1484328,00.html

... The Sudoku story began in 1783 when Leonhard Euler, a Swiss mathematician, devised 'Latin Squares', which he described as 'a new kind of magic squares'. ...

Where is the credit to Euler on Nikoli's site? Nikoli sure credt some American puzzle magazine, which is about the same as the Times telling it's readers that it is imported from Japan, whitout a reference to the person/company/organisation who created it.

Next the article talks about 'Number Place' from Dell Puzzle Magazines. (I personally haven't seen any of those so I can't (and won't!) comment about it.)

The article continues:

... it was spotted, imitated and embraced in puzzle-obsessed Japan. Publisher Nikoli made two small improvements to the concept and renamed it Sudoku ...

So Nikoli made two small improvements? Should they be given full credit for making some small improvements?

Sir, no. YOUR puzzles are "sudoku look-alikes". Only Nikoli's are genuine.

Pappocom's sudoku's nor Nikoli's sudokus are genuine IMHO. What are the genuine sudoku's? Good question. I obviously can't answer it because I don't care that much, but if you really care then you should start doing some real research.


My guess is that Nikoli is happy that Wayne got it popular around the world. Which gives them an extra source for their puzzle. My guess is that the Guardian started publishing 'Nikoli's puzzles' after the Times started publishing them. It was around since 1984, yet almost noone (outside Japan that is) knew about it...

And a big note, The puzzle published in the Newspapers are free of charge (or atleast according to the official Pappocom site and according to Wayne's comment). I have no idea what the deal is with the puzzles published in the books though...

[mabel]

I find correctly using and parsing multiply embedded quotes more difficult than Sudoku, so pardon me if I respond piecemeal:

I don't know what they told you in May, but it's clear they believe that hand made puzzles are superior to computer generated puzzles and that the flood of low quality puzzles may turn people off in the long run. See what they have to say here:
http://www.nikoli.co.jp/puzzles/1/hand_made_sudoku-e.htm

Is it? The only reference to 'quality' on that page I can find is in some user comment... or atleast that's what I guess it is. There are in total three comments on that page, two of them have some sort of relationship with Nikoli, indecated in the title, the second one does not. If he is not part of Nikoli then he obviously cannot speak for them and that makes it a user comment. Therfor the 'they' in your message is incorrect.

Also note that the person talks about a 'poor quality' sudoku. What is a 'poor quality' sudoku? Or how do you check the quality of a sudoku? He sure talks about some program generated puzzles... but without any reference to them, were they Pappocom puzzles? or not? Also, when was that comment made? I see no date, nor a 'last updated' (or anything similar)

There are CLEARLY no 'user comments' on that page, and it is disingenuous of you to imply so. That is the Official Nikoli website and the page -- which was posted only in the last week or so -- unambiguously states the opinions of the top people at Nikoli. The President of the Company, the editor of their flagship magazine, and (though it isn't stated on the page) a long time puzzle composer.

First, there is Nobuhiko Kanamoto - Chief Editor of Nikoli, who clearly says that computer generated puzzles are not as good as hand made.

Then there's Hirofumi Fujiwara, who says computer generated puzzles are of poor quality. He SPECIFICALLY refers to Pappocom puzzles, claiming they are of "poor quality" on his own web pages:
http://www.pro.or.jp/~fuji/java/sudoku-links-eng.html

(His main page is here: http://www.pro.or.jp/~fuji/java/index-eng.html

He has authored many 1000's of puzzles over the years.

Lastly, there is Maki Kaji, the President of Nikoli, who is more subtle in his comments, but I think readers will agree that he believes hand-made puzzles are superior to computer generated ones.


Regardless of what the "truth" is, whether there is actually a qualitative difference between hand-made and machine Sudoku puzzles made at this point in history, it's obvious that the people of NIKOLI think so. It's obvious that they are NOT happy with the widespread publication of computer knock-offs regardless of which software application spit them out.

Maybe Pappocom talked to a salesperson or executive who had a different opinion. Maybe there is dissagreement within the company. I don't know. Maybe they changed their minds since they last talked to Pappocom. I don't know. You may DISAGREE with their opinions, but you cannot claim they do not have them.

[mabel]

Part 2--

Elsewhere in this forum you imply that we are old fashioned to assume that your machine made puzzles are not as good as Nikoli's -- but surely there is no reason to believe thay are *superior*?

Just as there is no reason to believe that hand made sudoku's are superior to computer generated once. As a side note, did you even solve a bunch of sudoku's generated by the Pappocom software? If not, then you have no idea what you are talking about.

For the record, I do solve the Sudoku's published in the Guardian on a regular basis, which are created by Nikoli.

Well, yes, which puzzles are better is subjective, just as my claim that my computer generated novel "The Chair Said What?" is just as good as Dickens. Certainly we can discount those who have been creating and/or solving them for many years as being biased -- they may well be. My point was this -- there are only two possibilities -- either hand made are better, or there is no difference. Either it passes the Turing test and its output cannot be distinguished from a human -- I personally do not believe that has been accomplished -- or they're not as good. No one here has given any logical arguments why randomly placed clues could possibly lead to a better puzzle, regardless of how you define 'better'. Truthfully, given a choice between solving a human made or computer made puzzle -- Sudoku, Crossword, whatever -- wouldn't you prefer the human made one?


And yes, both my husband and I solved plenty of hard and very hard Pappocom puzzles, though he's done more than I have.

[mabel]

the ones that require not just one or two conjectures, but those that require mutliple conjectures, that might take a couple hours and several sheets of paper to solve. Neither Pappocom OR Nikoli makes Sudokus this hard. Some of the Diabolicals in the Telegraph are closer, but you have to look to puzzle competitions and some internet sources for the really hard ones.

For the record how many 'Very Hard' puzzle did you try that where generated by the Pappocom software? And if the very hard ones are the most fun, then why don't you post the sources to them? or an example of what you are talking about... something you call hard might be in fact easy too another person.

Maybe half a dozen V.Hards I suppose. They get repetitive. I don't have a list of sources for the harder puzzles. As Gould mentions, most published sources, on the net and in print, include only puzzles that can be solved without requiring the more difficult look ahead -- the puzzles he claims to be invalid, and not fun to solve. I guess I'm a weirdo -- those are the ones that are fun for me. Why would he chose NOT to let the user make her own choice to solve this type of puzzle? You can't even DUB one of them in! Put all the warning about difficutly you want -- but it seems odd to exclude this group of puzzles. The software cannot distinguish between one that is invalid because it has no solution and one with a unique answer that cannot be arrived without visuallizing long conditional contigencies or making a hypothisis and checking for a contradiction -- the fun part.

Here are a few that are labled "unfair" by the software, but will load anyway:

Code: Select all

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<!-- File name: "arguably_unfair.sudbook" -->
<sudoku-book>
   <user>0</user>
   <last>000000000000</last>
   <checked>005000000000</checked>
   <xtra>0</xtra>
   <puzzle-type>0</puzzle-type>
   <cells-in-row>9</cells-in-row>
   <boxes-across>3</boxes-across>
   <boxes-down>3</boxes-down>
   <featuredGrade>V.Hard</featuredGrade>
   <puzzle>
      <serial>1</serial>
      <grade>V.Hard</grade>
      <solvers>0000</solvers>
      <question>
3..57....
..7...9..
..5.2.8..
.7.4..6.1
.2.....9.
6.4..8.5.
..2.4.7..
..6...5..
....82..6
      </question>
   </puzzle>
   <puzzle>
      <serial>2</serial>
      <grade>V.Hard</grade>
      <solvers>0000</solvers>
      <question>
2....5.97
7..4..3..
.91...5..
9...4..7.
...1.9...
.3..2...9
..9...86.
..8..4..3
35.6....2
      </question>
   </puzzle>
   <puzzle>
      <serial>3</serial>
      <grade>V.Hard</grade>
      <solvers>0000</solvers>
      <question>
...1.3...
8..7.6..1
.36...85.
.7.8.9.2.
6.......9
.2.3.5.1.
.17...94.
2..6.7..5
...4.1...
      </question>
   </puzzle>
   <puzzle>
      <serial>4</serial>
      <grade>V.Hard</grade>
      <solvers>0000</solvers>
      <question>
52..3....
..1....7.
.....586.
1.9..6...
..3...7..
...7..6.1
.341.....
.1....5..
....8..13
      </question>
   </puzzle>
   <puzzle>
      <serial>5</serial>
      <grade>V.Hard</grade>
      <solvers>0000</solvers>
      <question>
6..189..5
....7....
93.....27
.4..1..6.
..7...4..
.9..4..3.
52.....84
....5....
7..894..1     
                </question>
   </puzzle>
</sudoku-book>


Here's three more that have unique solutions, I enjoyed solving on paper, but cannot be verified by Pappcom:

Code: Select all

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<!-- File name: "invalid.sudbook" -->
<sudoku-book>
   <user>0</user>
   <last>000000000000</last>
   <checked>001000000000</checked>
   <xtra>0</xtra>
   <puzzle-type>0</puzzle-type>
   <cells-in-row>9</cells-in-row>
   <boxes-across>3</boxes-across>
   <boxes-down>3</boxes-down>
   <featuredGrade>V.Hard</featuredGrade>
   <puzzle>
      <serial>1</serial>
      <grade>V.Hard</grade>
      <solvers>0000</solvers>
      <question>
...893.72
......9.4
....2..6.
...1..49.
9.8...6.7
.45..9...
.3..8....
6.1......
58.341...
      </question>
   </puzzle>
   <puzzle>
      <serial>2</serial>
      <grade>V.Hard</grade>
      <solvers>0000</solvers>
      <question>
........2
...4...6.
92.7.1.38
7.4....5.
...5.7...
.6....2.1
41.2.6.97
.7...8...
3........
      </question>
   </puzzle>
   <puzzle>
      <serial>3</serial>
      <grade>V.Hard</grade>
      <solvers>0000</solvers>
      <question>
31..9...5
......3..
4..7...8.
..62....1
..2...7..
7....48..
.9...3..8
..4......
5...8..69
      </question>
   </puzzle>
</sudoku-book>


Here are a couple puzzles by Hirofumi Fujiwara, the first of which he labled himself as "probably too hard" and the second of which -- I really don't remember how hard it was to solve, but it looks cute!

http://www.pro.or.jp/~fuji/java/puzzle/numplace/probtoohard.html

Code: Select all

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<!-- File name: "fujiwara.sudbook" -->
<sudoku-book>
   <user>0</user>
   <last>000000000000</last>
   <checked>002000000000</checked>
   <xtra>0</xtra>
   <puzzle-type>0</puzzle-type>
   <cells-in-row>9</cells-in-row>
   <boxes-across>3</boxes-across>
   <boxes-down>3</boxes-down>
   <featuredGrade>V.Hard</featuredGrade>
   <puzzle>
      <serial>1</serial>
      <grade>V.Hard</grade>
      <solvers>0000</solvers>
      <question>
..2.5..8.
.7....4..
4..9.2...
..4.8...1
.6.....4.
1...6.5..
...5.9..6
..5....7.
.8..2.3..
      </question>
   </puzzle>
   <puzzle>
      <serial>2</serial>
      <grade>V.Hard</grade>
      <solvers>0000</solvers>
      <question>
....6....
42.87....
..6.3.92.
..7.2...3
.4..8...6
.1..4..7.
6..752..9
254.....7
......85.
      </question>
   </puzzle>
</sudoku-book>



[mabel]

Maybe I should follow your lead -- in order to open the market in the US for you, I think I'll start a company called "Way|neG|ould" that makes a software game called "Pap|poc|om". I won't mention you, your website, your software. I'll go on all the talkshows, interview with all the papers, so that the name "Pap|poc|om" is connected very strongly in people's minds with me, my website, etc. All those people who have never heard of you will hear and see these names over and over.

Until I read this post I never bottered to look up the history of Sudoku, or who originally created it or where it came from.

Nikoli coined the word Sudoku. Other Japanese companies do not use the word. Nikoli saw a Number Place puzzle in one of the Dell magazines. They improved upon it and came up with a new name.

Yet I knew Nikoli and the fact that it was a Japan puzzle (which I'm about to question next). Just as I heared about 'Dell Puzzle magazine'

Several articles and interview from mention that it is imported from Japan, anyone who is smart enough therefor can realise that he is not the 'creator'.

And what of those not smart enough? Those who don't really use the internet much, and simply go to SUDOKU.COM, and download the "genuine" Sudoku software. Gould took the name and changed NOTHING about the puzzle itself.

Next on the list, what is the real origin of Sudoku? I don't know.

According to 'The Observer': http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1484328,00.html

... The Sudoku story began in 1783 when Leonhard Euler, a Swiss mathematician, devised 'Latin Squares', which he described as 'a new kind of magic squares'. ...

Where is the credit to Euler on Nikoli's site? Nikoli sure credt some American puzzle magazine, which is about the same as the Times telling it's readers that it is imported from Japan, whitout a reference to the person/company/organisation who created it.

So you are equating Nikoli dissing the long-dead Euler by not giving him props one the 222 year old Latin Square (long since in the public domain in name and form -- and only a weak connection with the Number Place puzzle) with Gould taking the registered Sudoku name for his own company's website, while the creator of the name is still in existance, still making the puzzle, without even attempting to improve upon it? I don't know the legal status of the puzzle itself. Nikoli probably cannot (and shouldn't in my opinion) stop anyone from publishing them as long as they call them by another name. Sudoku is clearly not a New Zealand name. Before it was brought to the UK recently, the ONLY puzzles called Sudoku anywhere on the planet were created by Nikoli.

Next the article talks about 'Number Place' from Dell Puzzle Magazines. (I personally haven't seen any of those so I can't (and won't!) comment about it.)

The article continues:

... it was spotted, imitated and embraced in puzzle-obsessed Japan. Publisher Nikoli made two small improvements to the concept and renamed it Sudoku ...

So Nikoli made two small improvements? Should they be given full credit for making some small improvements?

Of course! Nikoli was modest about the small improvements anyway. They:
1) Made the puzzle symmetrical
2) Reduced the number of clues by 50%
3) Made them individually by hand
4) Named their variation: SUDOKU

(And Japan is no more puzzle obsessed then the US or UK. )

Say you had a restaurant chain, called, I dunno, ANIMATORS. You were famous throughout Engand for your creation, the SNORDENDOODLE SALAD, which was based on the Ceaser salad but had two small changes -- that's the way your family made it. Anywhozzle, I come to the UK, taste the salad, love it, steal your recipe, go back home, and add ANIMATOR SNORDENDOODLE SALAD on the menu in my restaurant. When you complain that I didn't even mention ANIMATORS -- well, you didn't mention Ceaser. What do you think that does for your hopes of opening a place in the US? Worse, what if I make the salad badly -- won't that reflect badly on YOU to those who find out where the recipe is from?

Recipes, like many creations, can sometimes be dramatically improved or ruined by seemingly small changes.

Sir, no. YOUR puzzles are "sudoku look-alikes". Only Nikoli's are genuine.

Pappocom's sudoku's nor Nikoli's sudokus are genuine IMHO. What are the genuine sudoku's? Good question. I obviously can't answer it because I don't care that much, but if you really care then you should start doing some real research.

My guess is that Nikoli is happy that Wayne got it popular around the world. Which gives them an extra source for their puzzle. My guess is that the Guardian started publishing 'Nikoli's puzzles' after the Times started publishing them. It was around since 1984, yet almost noone (outside Japan that is) knew about it...

You don't need to guess if Nikoli is happy about what Gould has done. They're website makes it clear that although they are happy to expand, they are NOT happy with their name being usurped and machine made puzzles flooding the market. They know that if things continue as they are going, they'll have to sell their products at a vastly reduced price to compete with dozens, then hundreds of software programs spitting out undifferenciated puzzles by the millions.

And Nikoli IS well known all over the world -- in the puzzle community.

And a big note, The puzzle published in the Newspapers are free of charge (or atleast according to the official Pappocom site and according to Wayne's comment). I have no idea what the deal is with the puzzles published in the books though...

That IS a big point. He gives the puzzles free to hundreds of newspapers around the world in exchange for a including his website on the puzzle -- sudoku.com. 10's of millions of people will NEVER here of Nikoli -- all they will know of the puzzle is the name Sudoku. If Gould had modified the puzzle and given it a new name, say PAPPOCOM, then Nikoli would be far less likely to be harmed. Now they are hamstrung, having to explain over and over that they originated the puzzle. Any advertising they do will drive people to Gould's website -- which is my guess why he did it -- to impede his most likely competitor.

[Animator]

There are CLEARLY no 'user comments' on that page, and it is disingenuous of you to imply so. That is the Official Nikoli website and the page -- which was posted only in the last week or so -- unambiguously states the opinions of the top people at Nikoli. The President of the Company, the editor of their flagship magazine, and (though it isn't stated on the page) a long time puzzle composer.

Indeed, it isn't stated. And there is no link to his website either, or is there? So how should I (or anyone for that matter) know wheter or not that is someone that is a long time puzzle composer? I simply cannot know that. If the text behind his name would say something like 'Famous sudoku creater/solver/whatever' then I wouldn't have made my remark. But that is not the case, instead it states 'Famous Java Programmer'. Personally I can't see the link between a programming language and Sudoku.

Then there's Hirofumi Fujiwara, who says computer generated puzzles are of poor quality. He SPECIFICALLY refers to Pappocom puzzles, claiming they are of "poor quality" on his own web pages:
http://www.pro.or.jp/~fuji/java/sudoku-links-eng.html

The only text I can find that refers to Pappocom is 'Problem property is poor.' (to me property can have several meanings, in this case I take it as a synonim for quality, please correct me if I'm wrong.)

No further explanation at all... does he even know about the different types/categories? and again, no reason why he finds them poor... is he refering to the starting clues? The techniques that are required? The 'plan' which is used to generate them... All of these are things I wonder about.

Ofcourse that might be his personal opinion, but if you use someone's personal opinion then you should include the reasons why you (or he/she) believes that (or atleast if you want to convience others from that opinion). This is clearly not the case. So I really find it a useless 'argument'.

Regardless of what the "truth" is, whether there is actually a qualitative difference between hand-made and machine Sudoku puzzles made at this point in history, it's obvious that the people of NIKOLI think so. It's obvious that they are NOT happy with the widespread publication of computer knock-offs regardless of which software application spit them out.

Why would they be happy about competition? In the end however Sudoku will benefit from world wide attention and/or competition.

Maybe Pappocom talked to a salesperson or executive who had a different opinion. Maybe there is dissagreement within the company. I don't know. Maybe they changed their minds since they last talked to Pappocom. I don't know. You may DISAGREE with their opinions, but you cannot claim they do not have them.

Why would I want to claim that someone does not have an opinion about computer-generated and/or human generated puzzles? (note: I sad 'some user comment' I didn't not say: a page with (only) user comment. It is pretty clear ofcourse that the first and third person is related to Nikoli. The middle one is not and that makes him a user. And that qualifies his comment as user comment to me.)

Well, yes, which puzzles are better is subjective, just as my claim that my computer generated novel "The Chair Said What?" is just as good as Dickens. Certainly we can discount those who have been creating and/or solving them for many years as being biased -- they may well be. My point was this -- there are only two possibilities -- either hand made are better, or there is no difference.

So you are actually claiming that noone can have the opinion that computer made puzzles are better?

Truthfully, given a choice between solving a human made or computer made puzzle -- Sudoku, Crossword, whatever -- wouldn't you prefer the human made one?

I don't know. Do you? As a matter of fact, are crossword human or computer made? Is that even known by the people solving them?

Maybe half a dozen V.Hards I suppose. They get repetitive.

That would be 6 very hard puzzles... I'm not sure you've seen all the techniques that are used then... (unless ofcourse you find them bad for another reason.) Not all very hard puzzles are as hard (or as easy). There is a difference inside the categories aswell...

I don't have a list of sources for the harder puzzles. As Gould mentions, most published sources, on the net and in print, include only puzzles that can be solved without requiring the more difficult look ahead -- the puzzles he claims to be invalid, and not fun to solve.

Actually the ones that require 'look ahead' are the ones in which you need to guess (and/or use the Trial and Error technique). These are not generated at all. Now I'm not 100% sure how Nikoli feels about this but I think I've seen them making statements that those are bad/poor puzzles.

Here are a few that are labled "unfair" by the software, but will load anyway:

The 'unfair' ones are the one that require the Swordfish and/or Nishio technique (if I remember correct). The only ones labeled invalid are the ones that need guessing.

And what of those not smart enough? Those who don't really use the internet much, and simply go to SUDOKU.COM, and download the "genuine" Sudoku software. Gould took the name and changed NOTHING about the puzzle itself.

Actually the things I was talking about are the interviews with Wayne which are usually published somewhere close to the puzzle itself... (the Times has done several if I recall correct). Most, if not all, of these interviews state that he bought a puzzle magazine (in Japan) and found the puzzle in it. It's about the same credit Nikoli gives to the Dell. They refer to it as an 'American puzzle magazine'.

The difference ofcourse is that they have a History page and the Pappocom site does not.

Say you had a restaurant chain, called, I dunno, ANIMATORS. You were famous throughout Engand for your creation, the SNORDENDOODLE SALAD, which was based on the Ceaser salad but had two small changes -- that's the way your family made it. Anywhozzle, I come to the UK, taste the salad, love it, steal your recipe, go back home

If I have no ownership over the name or the recipe then that's my own fault. If it was really that good I would have ensured that I have the ownership over it. This is not the case with Sudoku (not with the name, except in Japan, nor with the idea (which is an ownership they should never be granted)).

And Nikoli IS well known all over the world -- in the puzzle community.

Out of curiosity, who is part of the puzzle community? The creators of the puzzles? Or the ones solving them? I'm not a big puzzle fan so I hadn't heard about Nikoli at all (before looking at Sudoku that is). I do know several people that solve Japanse puzzles (other then sudoku), perhaps I should ask them if they know Nikoli... To be honest, I would be surprised if the answer is yes.

That IS a big point. He gives the puzzles free to hundreds of newspapers around the world in exchange for a including his website on the puzzle -- sudoku.com.

I cannot comment on that since I do not know the exact deal/license/whatever they get the puzzles under. (as in, wheter or not it is a real requirement that they add the website's name... They might do that to give people a place to meet and/or to get tips, but again I'm just guessing)

Any advertising they do will drive people to Gould's website -- which is my guess why he did it -- to impede his most likely competitor.

What advertising does not include their website name? Why would they advertise one particular puzzle out of their big puzzle collection? And where would they advertise? If they advertise in Japan the name I would check would be sudoku.jp, or sudoku.co.jp, or whatever the usual thing is in Japan. I would not look at sudoku.com (except ofcourse when the others aren't working).

About the site, they had it coming. They did not register the Sudoku name as a worldwide trademark (or anything) only in Japan.

Sudoku.com (the website/domain name) is registerd in May 2000.

nikoli.co.jp is registerd in April 1999 (from what I can tell, I don't know Japanase so I can't read the explanation next to the date)

Out of that I conclude that they knew the internet, they knew websites and that they didn't botter to register it.

You can argue ofcourse that they have little buisness with sudoku.com, but they also failed to register sudoku.jp (which is registerd in 2004).

[lunababy_moonchild]

Mabel wrote ".........and that the flood of low quality puzzles may turn people off in the long run."

I can only comment on this part of your post and then only from my own experience. I started doing Sudoku when it appeared in the Daily Mail. I stopped doing their Soduko because I found them far too easy - I wasn't in a position then to judge whether they were good quality or not and I'm still not in that position. Then I came across Wayne's puzzles in the Times Book 1, this website and his program. I've also done a couple of the Independent's Super Sodukos and one or two of the supposedly hand generated puzzles in the WH Smith magazine, generated by Nikoli. It definitely states that the hand generated ones are superior. Since I've only done a couple I can't really say. Nor do I care, to be honest.

It's a game. A past-time. A puzzle. Nothing more important than that. Perhaps it would be to Wayne or Nikoli but only they can know that.

Luna

[jafosei]

I'll echo lunababy_moonchild's comments. I doubt very much that the machine-generated sudokus are going to turn people off of the puzzles.

There's a lot of crappy formula-driven music out there, but it doesn't keep people from listening to good music (the ones that want it, that is). There's a lot of terrible food out there, but it doesn't stop those that desire gourmet cuisine. A lot of writers turn out nothing but dreck, but a discerning reader will still find quality literature if they choose. As a rule, 90% of anything is crap, but that doesn't stop us from seeking out the stuff that suits us.

The only reason I've heard of sudoku at all is because of it's recent buzz on the Internet, which was caused by the UK newspaper sudoku boom, which was started by Mr. Gould's puzzles in the Times. Because of those factors, I checked them out and found them interesting and entertaining, and have since also explored other paper-and-pencil puzzles that I probably wouldn't have found without the initial exposure to sudoku (like Griddlers/Nonograms/Paint By Numbers-type puzzles, which I really like as well).

Personally, I'm grateful for the fact that Mr. Gould's efforts have helped popularize this puzzle, because without that, I likely wouldn't have found them.

That aspect probably won't mollify mabel or chuckfresno, I know. Purists often dislike popularizers. I can understand that feeling, but I don't share it.

For what it's worth, I've been doing several of the Guardian sudokus (Nikoli-made) recently. The arrangements are very nice, quite aesthetically pleasing. I don't notice any significant difference in solving them, though. But I've only been solving these puzzles for a month, so it could be that I simply lack the experience and skill to appreciate the subtleties involved.

[Zotmeister]

I live in the United States, where the puzzle was invented. Dell still cranks out Number Place after Number Place, and I have several books of Nikoli Sudoku imported from Japan, and I can definitely assure you that I can tell the difference. I suspected Dell of computer-generating their puzzles long before I first caught wind of Wei-Hwa Huang's reported claim confirming it. With human-built puzzles, not only do I get a sense of matching wits with the composer, but I also get a sense of what to expect from the composers once I've worked on a series of their puzzles. There's a good sense of meta-solving involved right there. I see "Tohru Makita" on a Sudoku at Puzzle Japan and I think "Ut-oh, what's he up to now?"; I see "kushimaru" and I think "Better stay sharp, I'm about to be put through my paces.". Their names put me into different mindsets. Working with - or against - these precognitions are a big factor in solving for me.

Wayne's proposed "blind taste test" is a fascinating proposition, but in putting it together he'd have to do more than just obscure the organics of the composer - he'd have to delete the names of the individual composers of the human-made puzzles. I think this is actually unfair, since from where I stand the name of the author is very much part of the puzzle. If the same author were used for all the human-built puzzles, that would make it a fairer match in that regard, but then there are fewer variables involved and I'm pretty sure finding the "signature" of just one composer among the computer entries would be pretty easy. ...Actually, I'd be willing to accept a friendly wager that I'd properly determine the organics of the composer for the majority of the puzzles even if they all had different authors. - ZM

[PaulIQ164]

Regarding the nice aesthetic of hand-made puzzles, you can get them with computer ones too if you're lucky. There was one in The Times this last week that looked like an Aquarius symbol - two wavy lines above each other.

[ab]

I don't think the aesthetic was in respect of the look of the puzzle. I have written a program where you tell the computer where you want the clues placed, then it looks for a puzzle. No the aesthetic they are talking about is the solving experience. The argument being that computer generated puzzles are not interesting to solve. I think this depends on how well the program was written. I'm no great programmer, but my generator makes some very nice puzzles, which are challenging and enjoyable to solve. Certainly at a similar level to the puzzles in the Guardian. Others have tried some of these puzzles and enjoyed them.

[Chessmaster]

Having solved Sudoku's on and off for over ten years

Sudoku has been around that long. i though it was new

[lunababy_moonchild]

Actually Nikoli have been composing puzzles for the Japanese public for 20 odd years now, so it's not at all new by any means.

Luna

[GLmathgrant]

There's a lot of crappy formula-driven music out there, but it doesn't keep people from listening to good music (the ones that want it, that is). There's a lot of terrible food out there, but it doesn't stop those that desire gourmet cuisine. A lot of writers turn out nothing but dreck, but a discerning reader will still find quality literature if they choose. As a rule, 90% of anything is crap, but that doesn't stop us from seeking out the stuff that suits us.

Yes, but what if the first mystery novel you ever read is crap? Wouldn't that turn you away from mystery novels in general? And so if there are any good mystery novels out there, you'd never find them.

The same applies here. Nikoli is saying if someone solves a bunch of computer-generated Sudokus and finds them to be crap, then they may never try Nikoli puzzles, and hence may never discover a true gem.