Dpburton,
Let me steal Harvard's picture.
Here would be a traditional swordfish allowing the removal of the 6 from r6c1 and r6c7.
- Code: Select all
. 6 . | . . . | . . .
. . . | . . 6X | . . 6X
. . . | 6 . . | 6 . .
---------+----------+---------
. . . | . 6 . | . . .
6 . . | . . . | 6 . .
6- . 6X | . . . | 6- . 6X
---------+----------+---------
. . 6X | . . 6X | . . .
6 . . | 6 . . | . . .
. . . | . . . | . 6 .
Now, if we add a potential 6 to r5c3, it looks like we lose our deductions:
- Code: Select all
. 6 . | . . . | . . .
. . . | . . 6X | . . 6X
. . . | 6 . . | 6 . .
---------+----------+---------
. . . | . 6 . | . . .
6 . 6* | . . . | 6 . .
6- . 6X | . . . | 6 . 6X
---------+----------+---------
. . 6X | . . 6X | . . .
6 . . | 6 . . | . . .
. . . | . . . | . 6 .
However, the theory of finned fish tells you that if a set of cells is an obstruction to a swordfish (or x-wing or other fish), then you can still make any eliminations that see the obstructed cells. In this case, the obstruction is r5c3. You can no longer eliminate the 6 from r6c7 since it doesn't see the obstruction, but you can still eliminate r6c1 since it does see the obstruction. The obstruction is usually called the fin (and this pattern would be a finned swordfish).
Next assume that we get rid of the 6 in r6c3.
- Code: Select all
. 6 . | . . . | . . .
. . . | . . 6X | . . 6X
. . . | 6 . . | 6 . .
---------+----------+---------
. . . | . 6 . | . . .
6 . 6* | . . . | 6 . .
6- . . | . . . | 6 . 6X
---------+----------+---------
. . 6X | . . 6X | . . .
6 . . | 6 . . | . . .
. . . | . . . | . 6 .
The claim is that we can still eliminate the 6 from r6c1. This is known as a sashimi swordfish. The idea is that we can pretend as if r6c3 could be a 6. In this case we are in the above example and can make the elimination.
One can similarly eliminate the 6 from r5c7.
I see that Harvard has just wrote something which will probably be more useful to you then my explanation, but I submit it for posterity.