The New Sudoku Players' Forum

[George]

I have a puzzle, which looks like it could be helped by the use of open chain but where to start and where to finish?
Puzzle is:

*4* *** 3**
79* *43 *6*
386 5*1 *4*

*1* 432 ***
**3 *5* 12*
*5* 1*6 *3*

5*9 **8 417
*2* 9*5 683
*** **4 259

Apart from the "X-Wing", there is also a "Jellyfish" in 7s. This also allow the puzzle to be solved.

Instead of "X-Wing" and "Jellyfish", I have tried using the "Open Chain of Sudo" to solve it. I have identified a few chains, especically in 7s and 9s, but couldn't eliminate any numbers because none lies on the intersection of conjugate cells. Also, I was unable to identify any "Like Link", so the open chain technique is not helpful here.

Can I safely say that as (4,8) which is 79 and part of a conjugate pair with (1,8) also79 then (4,3) which is 78 cannot be 7 as it cannot be allowed to influence the value of (4,8)????

No conclusion can be reached for the 7 in (4,3), since it does not lie on the intersection of any conjugate link.

Cheers
George

[Roger Scriven]

thanks
roger

[tso]

Tso

Why do you get so personal?

Because your posts have been arrogant and condescending.

Does this 8 year old deserve you writing a book about him detailing every single word he has used to describe a method which he has been trying to share with others?

You are not an 8 year old. You are talking down to us, lecturing, about a method *that is not new*, that has been described in these forums far more clearly. The onus is on the newcomer to read what came before. I did. The next newbie my well see your opaque posts first.

Firstly, for the interest of other readers, eight year old is simpy my way to express that I am new to this forum and still have a lot to learn. I am actually 12 now.

Oh, that's different. Then your less precocious, but more condescending for your age.

I don't want to write another book. I can see that you are a "forcing chain" supporter while I am not. Perhaps, I should have said in the outset that "IF YOU ARE A "FORCING CHAIN" FOLLOWER, STAY AWAY FROM THIS TOPIC". Definitely, we are not in the same wave length at all.

Yikes! Is anyone gonna back me up here? You can't tell people to stay away from your topic. I'm not a "forcing chain" follower. I enjoy finding the truth. Oh, and all-caps is generally frowned upon as yelling. Anyway, because I assumed you were an adult, perhaps I'm being unfair. Perhaps you don't understand the way your words come off. I am an adult. I *know* how obnoxios *I* sound. I may be speaking to you as if you were an adult -- you are speaking to us as if we are children. Perhaps you could have your mom or dad help you reword your posts to make them less antagonistic?

Similar to Nick, you have been hard selling the "Forcing Chain" technique right through your reponses. Nick has been advertising his turbot fish in his response. Both of you did not make any attempt at all to make any constructive comments on the pros and cons of the "Open Chain of Sudo" method. By the way, I bet you don't know that "Sudo" means "Single Number" in Japanese, where this puzzle was originated from. I bet you didn't go far enough to even try to fully understand how my technique works. Do you know what "Like Link" is and how it can help you to extend the chain further such that more candidates can be eliminated?

You wandered in to a chess club, got everone's attention, and explained how to castle. Only you called it "MY KING-ROOK MEGA SWAP".

Nick is not selling anything. Nick *has* something to add -- and if even if he didn't, he's not condescending. Nick is building on what has come before, as most of the rest of us are doing. I don't think you are hearing me -- there was nothing in your post that was original. It was a step back -- and it was difficult to make out.

Could you maybe take 10 minutes and learn to use the CODE command for clear diagrams? Which of these two is easier for YOU to parse:

Code: Select all

3     4     19     | 6     5     8      | 2     7     19   
89    18    5      | 7     4     2      | 19    6     3     
6     2     7      | 1     9     3      | 5     8     4     
-------------------+--------------------+-------------------
4     18    19     | 3     7     5      | 89    2     6     
5     6     2      | 8     1     9      | 4     3     7     
89    7     3      | 4     2     6      | 189   5     19   
-------------------+--------------------+-------------------
7     9     8      | 2     3     4      | 6     1     5     
2     3     4      | 5     6     1      | 7     9     8     
1     5     6      | 9     8     7      | 3     4     2     


or

(1,2)=(1,3)=478, (1,5)=148, (1,6)=17,
(2,5)=46, (2,6)=67, (2,9)=47,
(3,2)=478, (3,5)=48, (3,9)=47,
(4,1)=47, (4,4)=17, (4,7)=14,
(5,2)=247, (5,3)=2457, (5,5)=57, (5,7)=24,
(6,2)=28, (6,3)=258, (6,6)=15, (6,7)=12,
(7,3)=27, (7,4)=17, (7,5)=127,
(8,3)=26, (8,5)=256, (8,6)=56,
(9,1)=47, (9,3)=467, (9,5)=67.

If you are not communicating, don't blame the reader. If Nick and I don't understand you to be saying anything new, then either you are not expressing yourself clearly, or you are saying nothing new, or both.

If you are a grown up mature being, just cut all your sarcastic non-sense and study what I posted in the first place before publishing your next book. However, for a strong supporter of "Forcing Chain" like you, my technique is just chicken bones to you. Then, you should look for your self satisfaction else where.

You are sarcastically asking me to cease being sarcastic? You want me to *study* your post? Chicken bones? Is that anything like a Turbot Fish?

[George]

Because your posts have been arrogant and condescending.

I think you are the one who have been condescending.

You never come to the point to discuss my Open Chain method. So far, you told me that the puzzle could also be solved by forcing chain. Fair enough, I knew that all the time. I think many people out there are trying to avoid bifurcation and would like to learn more trick to solve puzzles by cold logic.

You told me my method was not new. Fair enough, but you never explain what was already there. As I said, the Open Chain is an extension of Angus' Colours. It is an extension because it uses a combination of conjugate links and like links to propagate further, so that more candidates could be eliminated.

You are being very unfair. How would you expect every newcomer to read all the posting in this forum before drawing his/her conclusion on what to share and what not to share? I expect people to give me constructive comments if they think that there are something that I should know, not in such a negative and condescending way like yours.

I am not familiar with the "Code" function because I was new to this forum. However, I think my way of expression is quite clear. It is not a crime not to code the puzzle in the way you expected. You may choose not to read it at all, but please don't make any irrelevant comments before you have read it and understood it.

Please don't bother to respond as you are wasting valuable space in this forum. I will also cease to respond to any of your post from this point onward for the same reason.

Cheers
George

[Pappocom]

Okay, tso and George, cut it out, or I'll have to exclude both of you. You are welcome to talk about Sudoku, but without personal comments, please. No comebacks.

- Wayne

[George]

I was going through your Turbot Fish so quickly that I must have missed out something. I will revisit the link and read every line closely. My apology for jumping the gun.

Nick

I have read your post in the Turbot Fish thread and fully understood how it works. This is brilliant and exactly the tricks that I want to learn, Thank you.

From you post, there are 4 different types of Turbot Fishes. Only the third one coincides with the Open Chain or Colour.

In my opinion, it is completely unnecessary to look for turbot fishs. Every sample you can solve with it, can be done just in the way George did, by applying simple 4-nodes-chains.

No, the Open Chain covers only the third case of the Turbot Fish. But, the Open Chain can propagate through more than 5 cells.

Cheers