Pat wrote:in the new puzzle (one less clue),
i may indeed reach an answer which matches the (unique) answer of the original puzzle
this does not guarantee that the new puzzle has only one answer
From what I see there is
no new puzzle. It doesn't matter the
puzzle state with one less clue has a unique solution or not. People only care about the
old puzzle.
It is always just a mean of working out the solution of the old puzzle. Say you're stuck hopelessly in a diabolical puzzle. You see that removing one given clue will create a Unique Rectangle. Even though you know the
puzzle state without that clue would probably have more than one solutions, you blindly remove that clue and apply the uniqueness techniques. There will be 3 outcomes:
1. You reach a contradiction. Tough luck, go back to the state
before you removed that clue.
2. You reach a state in which the cell where you removed a clue attains a value
different to the original given clue. You know even if you reach a solution from that state, it won't be the correct one for the
original puzzle. Tough luck, go back to the state
before you removed that clue.
3. You somehow reach a state in which the cell where you removed a clue attains a value
identical to the original given clue. BINGO! You are on the right track to the correct solution (of the
original puzzle). At the very least you're in a better position than before you apply this maneuver.
Like I said this approach is
not logically better than any guessing/trial-and-error approach. But say in a time-based competition where finding solution is the goal, when things are getting desperate it's definitely a viable option to try, albeit the same can be said for any other guessing/trial-and-error moves.