## Killer sudoku rules insanity

For fans of Killer Sudoku, Samurai Sudoku and other variants
even stranger - the rules have changed again! - even today's paper contradicts itself...

in today's Killer we have

Within each dotted-line "shape", a digit CAN be repeated if the normal row column and 3x3 box rules are not broken.

Yet in the full page article on p20 "since numbers cannot be repeated within a single sum box"... and lots of rules implying the same (eg 1,2 and 3 as only candidates in a 3 square cage.

I suspect that the CANNOT rule is the correct one - has anyone ever seen a Killer Sudoku that breaks the rule? You could for example have a cage containing 4,1,1 if it was placed on the junction of 3 3x3 boxes...
andylong

Posts: 3
Joined: 11 October 2005

I suggest you read the "Killer Book #91" thread !
afjt

Posts: 82
Joined: 07 September 2005

rules for "Killer Su Doku" at The Times may change.

Miyuki Misawa states her rules for Samunanpure:
The same number doesn't enter in joined squares of dotted lines.

also see http://www7a.biglobe.ne.jp/~sumnumberplace/31642733/
e.g. 6 in 3 cells can only be 1+2+3

- Pat

Pat

Posts: 3674
Joined: 18 July 2005

There's obviously a huge lack of joined-up thinking at The Times. The article in Times 2 on Killer today was written by Leo Lewis, who says he was commissioned to find something that "goes a bit further" than regular Su Doku. He makes it clear in the article that digits cannot be repeated in a cage. So who is writing (a) the rules printed with the puzzles in the paper, which seem to change from day to day at whim, and (b) the Killers in the book that do allow repeated digits (despite their being forbidden in the Guidelines in the book)? Time for the Editor to call the Features Editor in for a chat, I think.
jf27

Posts: 34
Joined: 18 September 2005

clarity at last:

today the rules say "CANNOT be repeated"

then....

"Apologies for yesterday's misprint which stated that digits can be repeated within each shape. They CANNOT."

The conflicting puzzle #91 I guess is an error.

So that seems to be a fairly definitive final statement and makes the 1/2/3 in a 6 cage rules etc all valid.
andylong

Posts: 3
Joined: 11 October 2005

Yep, "standard" rule has it that no digit could be repeated within a cage.

I think the designer wasn't aware of the exact rules from the Japanese when s/he created #91 or s/he deliberately made it that way to give the buyers of the book some surprise value... I guess not everyone likes this move but I personally wouldn't mind had I bought it... The "standard" killers seem not too challenging enough now...
udosuk

Posts: 2698
Joined: 17 July 2005

Does it bother anyone else that they finally took the time to go down to the basement and change CANNOT to CAN and back to CANNOT, as well as apologize for the error, but not take another 30 editorial seconds to fix this tortured construction:

"Within each dotted-line 'shape', a digit CANNOT be repeated if the normal row, column and 3x3 box rules are not broken."

There should either be the word "even" after the word "repeated" -- or just a period. Further, "shape" doesn't belong in quotes. Who are they quoting? As it stands, it looks like someone made a mistake writing writing a message in frosting on a birthday cake -- there is no backspacing on birthday cake.

I know what they mean only because I already know the rules. If I didn't, I could reasonably infer:

"On the other hand, within each dotted-line 'shape', a digit CAN be repeated if the normal row, column and 3x3 box rules ARE broken." -- in other words, we're allowed to break the normal rules as long as there is a duplication withing the cage.

The do have editors there, right?
tso

Posts: 798
Joined: 22 June 2005

tso wrote:

The[y] do have editors there, right?

Too many, I think -- that may be trouble.
jf27

Posts: 34
Joined: 18 September 2005

tso wrote:"Within each dotted-line 'shape', a digit CANNOT be repeated if the normal row, column and 3x3 box rules are not broken."

There should either be the word "even" after the word "repeated" -- or just a period.

It's been written without anything after 'repeated' for a while now.
PaulIQ164

Posts: 533
Joined: 16 July 2005

PaulIQ164 wrote:
It's been written without anything after 'repeated' for a while now.

I didn't realize this -- I only have access to the online version which hasn't changed.
tso

Posts: 798
Joined: 22 June 2005

Aah. The Times never seem to have put that much thought into their website, so I'm not surprised it's out of date.
PaulIQ164

Posts: 533
Joined: 16 July 2005

Previous