rjamil wrote:Accept apology for my blunder mistake. I am extremely sorry.
No need to apologize. Mistakes are the best teachers!
By the way, I have checked with another Strong Link of the same W-Wing that works perfectly as OTP.
The logic works, but it's not a W-Wing. Too many links for that. Remember that all one-letter wings have exactly three strong links. This has four:
W-Wing: 16 @ r2c9 r9c7 ERI 6 @ b2r2c5 ERI 6 @ b8r9c5 => -1 @ r9c9; stte
The same as a chain:
(1
=6)r2c9 - r2c4
= r3c5 -
r79c5 = r9c6 - (6
=1)r9c7 => -1 r9c9
Or:
(1
=6)r2c9 - r2c4
= r3c5 - r7c5
= r9c56 - (6
=1)r9c7 => -1 r9c9
Even with fewer links it wouldn't be a simple W-Wing because of the group node in box 8 (you should use the "Grouped" prefix to denote that). You could perhaps call that an
Extended Grouped W-Wing or something, but it's probably not very standard. The group node (and the corresponding prefix) can also be avoided with either of these:
(1=6)r2c9 - r2c4 = r3c5 - r7c5 = r7c8 - (6=1)r9c7 => -1 r9c9 (yours without the group node)
(1=6)r2c9 - r3c8 = r3c5 - r7c5 = r7c8 - (6=1)r9c7 => -1 r9c9 (the X-Wing path mentioned by
eleven)
ERIs (with more than two candidates) and other group links should normally be used only when simple links aren't available. Otherwise they're just unnecessary complications in the chain form. Also if such group links are used with a named pattern, it should be mentioned with the "Grouped" qualifier to warn the reader to look for such links instead of the simple form.
(On the other hand, more specific type designators are not necessary or even helpful for most readers. Everyone knows what "grouped" means, and it's useful information, but few know or care what something arbitrary like "Type 6B" means.)