Leren wrote:added Grouped to Step 3. A Skyscraper can always be seen as a Sashimi Finned X Wing or a short (2 Strong links) X Chain
That part I understand. I also understand in general that things can be viewed from different perspectives and thus have several logical names. But a Grouped Skyscraper? Never heard of it. This is just my personal and possibly uninformed opinion, but I'm not sure if that is a very helpful term to add(?) to the already bloated sudoku nomenclature
I'm not saying I'm necessarily right, but having only recently (this spring) started cramming advanced techniques I may have a fresh perspective on what's pedagogically useful and what's not. Most of the patterns and their variants wouldn't be that difficult to learn if they were named and categorized in consistent hierarchies but they're not. There's not much we can do to the historically established names but I'd prefer not to add to the problem. The many and sometimes illogical names for the same concept (or similar names for totally different concepts) make things look much more complicated than they really are, which may discourage potential enthusiasts and complicates communication (for example, some of the exotic patterns or their variations on this forum aren't easily googlable). I understand the benefits from the experts' point of view, as some things can be communicated more concisely with specific names, but I bet it's a pretty small group that understands all the nuances. For others it's hard to follow certain discussions that contain very specialized jargon.
I can only speak for myself, but for me it's much easier to learn a single generic concept - such as X-Chains (which is already a special case of AICs) and its grouped variant - than several instances of it with each having multiple names depending on the perspective. As far as names go, the X-family is one of the worst already, as it has X-Wings that aren't wings and Turbot Fishes that aren't fishes, as well as special cases like Skyscrapers and 2-String Kites (not to even mention Simple Coloring adding to the confusion sometimes). Adding a Grouped Skyscraper to that list, even if it's logical from a certain perspective (and it is), does more damage than good, as far as I'm concerned. Why not call it a Finned X-Wing which is an established concept, if you want to communicate clearly both the size and the shape of the pattern (all of which the generic "Grouped X-Chain" admittedly does not)? A newbie can easily learn about "Finned X-Wing" by googling, but a search on "Grouped Skyscraper" brings nothing by itself and requires translating Skyscraper into an X-Chain which has a known grouped variant. (In fact -- and unfortunately -- googling "Grouped X-Cycle" would be most helpful even though it's not exactly accurate in this case.)
Creation of an stte list is a function of my solver (pjb came up with the idea first). It helps with the daily one move wonder puzzles. Also I can limit lots of moves to those that solve a cell. That helps with the dailies, but it's also good for reducing the number of moves used to complete harder puzzles.
So it's a bit of cheating?
Just kidding. I understand the motivation and will probably try that approach sometime. Until now I haven't been too concerned about the style points or efficiency of my solve paths. That may change once I learn more. Also, it might actually be a good learning tool to force oneself to attack certain candidates instead of just picking more or less obvious eliminations without any clear goal. Thanks for the clarification!
Transport is just just an added Weak link-Strong link to any move that otherwise would not make an elimination.
Thanks for the clarification on that, too. That's an example of a variant that at least I couldn't find by googling. Searching this forum would have helped more, though, it seems.
W Wings are described pretty well on the Hodoku Site
Yes, I ran into those some time ago. The W-Wing is actually a perfect example of what I said about illogical pattern names above. It's a very confusing pattern name, even if it's somewhat established. I have two problems with it: the W and the Wing
The first time I saw a reference to it, I thought it was just a short name for WXYZ-Wing just like Y-Wing is for XY-Wing. Only when I finally googled it I learned it was a very different thing. Also, I don't see how it should be called a wing at all and categorized with XY-Wings and XYZ-Wings on the Hodoku site. (Then again, what exactly is the definition of a "wing"? That's somewhat unclear to me as well. I see them as short ALS (or sometimes perhaps AALS?) chains with a pivot cell, but is that accurate and comprehensive?)
Is my solution "better" because it has fewer non-basic moves ? Not everyone would argue that. Another measure of "goodness" in a solution might be the smallest complexity (number of Strong links) of the most complex move.
Yeah, I guess the relative goodness of a solution depends on the perspective like so many things. The elegance of an effective but complex move may be totally lost on newbies while it's greatly appreciated by experts, and vice versa. Could an optimal solution be something like the shortest path your audience can fully understand (or at least learn to understand with acceptable effort)?
