Plattso.ver2.0 wrote:Isn't "number of solutions = zero" the same as screening the move for validity? ....
Yup. But, since we're starting with an empty grid, and gradually working our way up into reasonable territory, about the only way Mr. Computer could screen for validity is to try to solve the puzzle.
.... Isn't "previously been disallowed" the same as Mr Computer saying "no, RnCn is not N" in the list of moves in a game of known starting grid? ....
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Another way of saying "previously been disallowed" is to say "You already tried that". (Or "your opponent already tried that".)
.... You're saying that if Mr Computer determines there is a unique solution, game is over, regardless of what that solution is? ....
Yes, the computer would have to try to solve the puzzle anew at each turn. If it finds there is no solution, disallow the entry. If it finds a solution, then it would have to look for a second solution, or prove there is none. Once a second solution is found, that's good enough, we don't care how many solutions there are if there are at least two.
....I'm not sure if you're saying anything I haven't. ....
Maybe I'm not. Not sure.
.... it seems some sort of gains must be made by the players in the interactions of the digits as structures or by tactical movement during the course of the game as the players are heading toward a resolution of the grid. Some sort of score. ....
My idea was to try to be the first player to reduce the number of solutions to 1. I'm thinking along the following lines. Eventually, in many newspaper puzzles near the end of the week, one often gets to a position where there are only 15 or so unresolved cells, many of which have only two candidates, some three, few if any with four. In many such situations, guessing one of them will lead immediately to filling in most of the rest. One must be careful, then, not to hand an easy solution to the opponent. Jockeying around, sort of like trying to avoid zugzwang in chess.
I'm not at all sure this idea is even workable, though.
.... Maybe the discussion should break into two parts.
One for finding a pleasing meld of Sudoku and Reversi.
One for speculating about a competitive game which generates strictly a Sudoku puzzle.
Yeh, I guess I was straying a bit far from the original topic here.
Bill Smythe