Hi Steve,
SteveG48 wrote:SpAce wrote:Quick and dirty.
(8)r8c9 = r3c9 - r3c3 = r2c13 - r2c56 = (67,8)r2c56,r6c6 - b2p563 = (8)r1c4 => -8 r8c4; stte
Hi, SpAce. I struggled with this same basic idea and more or less abandoned it because I couldn't figure out a nice way to write it.
Because there isn't, I guess
That's (one reason) why I called it quick and dirty.
As a memory chain it's easy.
Exactly.
In your chain, I don't understand the link (67,8)r2c56,r6c6 - b2p563 . How does the 8 at r6c6 eliminate the 8 at b2p5?
It doesn't. It's the (67)r2c56 part that does it. The 8r6c6 only negates the crucial r1c6. I think the weak link works all right with the comma, although it's admittedly tricky to understand. I have a bigger problem with the previous strong link (8)r2c56 = (67,8)r2c56,r6c6 because I don't like such quantum jumps between houses. While technically correct, I think, it basically hides one chain step. Unfortunately I don't see an easy way to do it otherwise.
Likewise, once we recognize that r1c6 can't be an 8, we have a simple kite, but that's a two-stepper.
Now that you mention it, it could be written as an almost-Kite:
[(8)r1c4 = r1c7 - r3c9 = (8)r8c9] = (8)r1c6 - (8=76)r62c6 - (6=8)r2c5 - r2c13 = r3c3 - r3c9 = (8)r8c9 => -8 r8c4
...or as I would prefer:
(8)R1C9\b3[r8c4] = (8)r1c6 - (8=76)r62c6 - (6=8)r2c5 - r2c13 = r3c3 - r3c9 = (8)r8c9 => -8 r8c4