The New Sudoku Players' Forum

by **champagne** » Sat Aug 26, 2023 8:01 pm

Paquita wrote: I would not include skfr rates, it is a great tool for fast rating but less precise.

Hi Paquita,

Forget skfr in these discussions.

skfr has been implemented as "pre rating quick tool" for the pattern game.
I has been created for a windows PC using an old frame based on my current solving tools at that time (2006??) based on the full tagging process;
skfr has bugs that nobody (including me) will try to fix;
skfr is a C++ code using the PC set of instructions.
And skfr is supposed to clone sudoku explainer

Nothng to make it a candidate for a rating agreed tool.

by **hendrik_monard** » Sat Aug 26, 2023 8:32 pm

Paquita wrote:. What is meant by the solution minlex and the solution maxlex? I only have the maxlex form to start with. It may have been a different form when I found it but I don't keep those.

1. Find the solution of a minlex puzzle
2. Make minlex morph of solution and apply the used transformation parameters (swapping rows, columns, numbers, and possible transposition, all respecting sudoku symmetry rules) to the minlex puzzle.
mith's file 'Minimals of Depth 3 11.8+ Expanded' contains both of them for each puzzle (minlex first)
Luckily there is a tool of gsf doing that for you. It is the same tool as the one for making minlex. You only have to change the -f%#mc to -f%#0c
The m is replaced by 0 (zero). Sorry for the probably not exact terminology I used but I hope it is understandable.
The same can be done for maxlex. However I don't know if a tool is available. In fact I hope we can do without it (or even them)

BTW, I rapidly checked the first five puzzles of your list and found all of them in ph_2010, the last database of Champagne. I suspect that there may be more duplicates in your list. This should not be a surprise as mith's expanded puzzles were obtained from earlier existing minimal puzzles. So if you do vicinity search on minimal puzzles derived from these expanded puzzles you may obtain also the original minimal(s) among the results. So I would advise you to always check your results on novelty before submitting them. I know, it's a burden but it is necessary.

Edit: added "do vicinity search on"

by **mith** » Sat Aug 26, 2023 8:48 pm

Paquita wrote:Mith,

Quite a collection! Did you rate these, or part of them? There are no rates in your list. And is it correct that this is the T&E(3) collection? So these will not show up in an update of the ph2010?

The expanded forms are rated (and this will be included in the full update); the minimals are not rated individually (unless they are already expanded by virtue of not having singles at the start).

This is the T&E(3) collection, yes. What I will probably do is:

1. [In the next week or two] Publish the update of the T&E(3) collection (in the other thread), which will include the following:

2. [In the next month?] Get my various scripts on github, including a couple new ones for ease of use

3. [In the next two months] Publish an update of the ph database from my local copy + new puzzles in thread (this will take longer to scrape for). Either I will check the T&E depth for all of these and incorporate the T&E(3) minimals (which will need to be rated first) with a column for depth so that they can easily be separated, or I will keep them separate until I can do that. Whether the depth 3 puzzles are incorporated or not, I will release two versions:

by **mith** » Sat Aug 26, 2023 8:52 pm

champagne wrote:Forget skfr in these discussions.

The reason I will keep skfr in 3b. is simply to prioritize which ones to rate with serate. I will probably never get around to rating *all* of them, but something with skfr close to the cutoff has the possibility of being above the cutoff when rated by serate. It won't be intended for anyone else to pay any attention to it, but it's there in the databases.

For 3a. these will all be rated by serate so there's no need to consider skfr.

by **Paquita** » Sat Aug 26, 2023 9:08 pm

Thank you Hendrik for pointing at my doubles. No 11.9 for me, alas!

I do check against the ph2010 and puzzles published since, as far as I have them, for the new puzzles completeness is not granted. But ph2010 has always been in my list of known puzzles. I don't know how this could happen, but it did. I was missing puzzles from my checkfiles. I restored it.

This is the updated list (fingers crossed)

Code: Select all: 987......6..54.............37.82.6..2.86...73.9.........3....62.....67.8.....239. ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 987......6..54.............37.82.6..2.86...73.9........6...239...3.....2.....67.8 ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 987......6..54.............37.82.6..2.86...73.9........6...27.8.2...639...3.....2 ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 987......6..54.............37.82.6..2.86...73..9.......9...27.8.2...639...3.....2 ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 98765.......4..........3...8.57.692..9.2..7...2.....686...2.89.2...6..57.5....... ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 98.76.5..7.64.5.....4.896..6...9....5...74.9....6.8...4.7...8.....8....9.......32 ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 98.76.5..7.64.5.....4.896..6...9....5...74.96.....8...4.7...8.....8....9.......32 ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 98.76....7.6..58...45.9.6..65..4.....978...4...46.....5.......4...97.5.........32 ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 98.76.5..7.....6...4.....7.6.9..5..447...6.8..58...96...4.7.......32.........489. ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 9876.........95........4...83.2..9..2..3...87..6......79....6.33.2.6.8...68....92 ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 9876.........958.......4...83.2...9.2..3..7.8..6......79....36.3.2.6.....68...2.9 ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 98.76.5..7.....6...4.....7.6.9..5..447...6.8..58...96....32.4......7.........489. ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 9876.........95........4...83.2..9..2..3.6.87..6......79....6.33.2...8...68....92 ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 9876.........958.......4...83.2...9.2..3.67.8..6......79....36.3.2.......68...2.9 ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 98.76.5..7.54.8....64..98..8...74.9.5...9.......5.6...4.7...6.....6....9.......32 ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 9876.........95........4...89....63.3.2.6.7....6....2973.2..9..2..3...87.68...... ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 9876.........95........4...89....63.3.2...7....6....2973.2..9..2..3.6.87.68...... ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 98.76.5..7.54..8...64..8...8...74.9.5...9.......5.6...4.7...6.....6....9.......32 ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 9876.........95........4...8.....63..32.6.7....6....296.8......37.2..9...2.3...87 ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 9876.........95........4...8.....63..32...7....6....296.8......37.2..9...2.3.6.87 ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 9876.........958.......4...86....39.7.....2.6.32.6....67.......2.83....9..32..78. ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 98.76.5..7.....6...4.....7.65.....844.9..6..5..8..596...4.7.......32.........489. ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 98.76.5..7.54..8...64.58...8...74.955...9.........6...4.7...6.....6....9.......32 ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 9876.........958.......4...86....39.7.....2.6.32......67.......2.83....9..32.678. ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 98.76.5..7.....6...4.....7.65.....844.9..6..5..8..596....32.4......7.........489. ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 98.76.5..7.6.54....549......9.4...7..4768......5.9.....68....9....8...3.........2 ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 98.76.5..7.5..9.6...4......6..98....5..4.7....78.56..4.9..........8...39.......2. ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 987......65.43..........6..87.9...65......8.9......27.7....5...52...97.8.68..2... ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 987......65.43.......9..6..87..9..65......8.9......27.7....5...52....7.8.68..2... ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 9876.........5.9.......4...67...938.2.8....9..3....2.7.932..87..2.3..6....6...... ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 98765.......4..........3...8.57.692.2......68.9.2..7..72..6.89.6...2..57.5....... ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 98765.......4..........3...8.62..7...957..82..2.....695........27..6.98..6..2..57 ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 98765.......4..........3...8.57.692..9.2..7...2.....686...2..572...6.89..5....... ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 9876.........5.9.......4...67...938.2.8....9...3...2.7.392..87..2.3..6....6...... ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 9876.........5.9.......4...67...938.2.8....9...3...2.7.3.2..6...293..87...6...... ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 9876.........95........4...8.3...96..2.....38..6.....73.92.6.7.27........683...2. ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 9876.........95........4...8.3...96.72.....38..6.....73.92.6.7.2.........683...2. ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 9876.........95........4...8.3...96.27.....38..6.....772.......3.92.6.7..683...2. ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 9876.........95........4...8.63..2..27........932.67..72....38.6.9....7..3....6.9 ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 9876.........95........4...8.63..2..72........932.67..6.9....7.2.....38..3....6.9 ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 9876.........95........4...8.63..2...932.67...2.......6.9....7.27....38..3....6.9 ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 98.76.54.7.5.......6.9..7..54....97..96....8...7...6.54.86.........384......2.... ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 98.76.5..7.58.4....64.9.8..84.5.....6.794..5..59.........6...32....7.6.........8. ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 98.76.5..7.5.946...648.....8.....9...9.....32.......6.47.9.8.5..5.64........57... ED=11.8/1.2/1.2 9876.........5.9.......4...67..3928..2....3.7..8....9..923..87..3.2..6....6...... ED=11.8/1.2/1.2

and lower rates

Hidden Text: Show

Website · by **denis_berthier** » Sun Aug 27, 2023 5:30 am

mith wrote:The expanded forms are rated (and this will be included in the full update);

Do you mean the SER will now appear in the min-expand list instead the minimal list? That's good for me.

mith wrote:This is the T&E(3) collection, yes. What I will probably do is:
1. [In the next week or two] Publish the update of the T&E(3) collection (in the other thread), which will include the following:
c. all expanded forms (this can be derived from either the min-expands or max-expands, but if I'm providing the minimals I might as well), all rated with serate (SER is not a cutoff for these though, and some rate as low as 4.5 because of uniqueness)

Do you mean all the intermediate puzzles between the min-expands and max-expands. I don't see the point.
Sure, the T&E(3) database should have no cutoff of any type.

One thing you could add to the min-expand list is some cabalistic sign on lines, meaning it's a new puzzle wrt to the previous version.

mith wrote:3. [In the next two months] Publish an update of the ph database from my local copy + new puzzles in thread (this will take longer to scrape for). Either I will check the T&E depth for all of these and incorporate the T&E(3) minimals (which will need to be rated first) with a column for depth so that they can easily be separated, or I will keep them separate until I can do that. Whether the depth 3 puzzles are incorporated or not, I will release two versions:
a. all SER rated minimals above some cutoff TBD (this might include several cutoffs based on SER and chain level, and possibly some puzzles of interest that are lower SER - that database is rated with gsf q1 and q2 as well, as I used those for filters for a while)
b. all puzzles, some of which will not be SER rated (but will at least be skfr rated).

Including the T&E(3) puzzles in the ph database would be redundant with the existence of the T&E(3) database. Moreover, it would make it look unnecessarily large.
It'd be much better to have a lower SER cutoff in it. As I said before, restricting it to 11.6+ would eliminate potentially interesting puzzles. Also, 11.6 would make no sense wrt to the types of chains/nets in SER:

Code: Select all: 10.2 Dynamic + Forcing Chains (37-48 nodes) CRCD Forcing Chains 10.3 Dynamic + Forcing Chains (49-72 nodes) CRCD Forcing Chains 10.4 Dynamic + Forcing Chains (73-96 nodes) CRCD Forcing Chains 10.5 Dynamic + Forcing Chains (97-144 nodes) CRCD Forcing Chains 10.6 Dynamic + Forcing Chains (145-192 nodes) CRCD Forcing Chains 10.7 Dynamic + Forcing Chains (193-288 nodes) CRCD Forcing Chains 10.8 Dynamic + Forcing Chains (289-384 nodes) CRCD Forcing Chains 10.9 Dynamic + Multiple Forcing Chains (73-96 nodes) CRCD Forcing Chains 11.0 Dynamic + Multiple Forcing Chains (97-144 nodes) CRCD Forcing Chains 11.1 Dynamic + Multiple Forcing Chains (145-192 nodes) CRCD Forcing Chains 11.2 Dynamic + Multiple Forcing Chains (193-288 nodes) CRCD Forcing Chains 11.3 Dynamic + Multiple Forcing Chains (289-384 nodes) CRCD Forcing Chains 11.4 Dynamic + Multiple Forcing Chains (385-576 nodes) CRCD Forcing Chains 11.4 [Dynamic + Dynamic Forcing Chains (73-96 nodes) Region/Contradiction Forcing Chains] 11.5 [Dynamic + Dynamic Forcing Chains (97-144 nodes) Region Forcing Chains] 11.6 [Dynamic + Dynamic Forcing Chains (145-192 nodes) Cell Forcing Chains] 11.7 [Dynamic + Dynamic Forcing Chains (193-288 nodes) Double Forcing Chains]

Note that most of the terms used make no sense to me (Dynamic, Multiple Forcing, Contradiction Forcing, Double Forcing)
But what's sure is, something happens within SER level 11.4: a new type of chains (Dynamic Forcing Chains) starts to be considered.

Put this with my results in [PBCS, table 11.2], where a discontinuity clearly appears at SER 11.4 (with, in particular the first B6B).
The conclusion should clearly be that any cutoff should include SER 11.4.
Space gained by eliminating the T&E(3) puzzles from this collection can be used to have a lower cutoff.

Finally, about which rating software should be used for SER-type ratings in the database. First, I'd like to say I don't care very much personally, because I'm not doing these ratings myself (or only occasionally) and I don't attach much importance to ±1 or even ±2 variations. Let the database manager do as he likes and as his computer accepts to do.

As for me, until very recently, I had used (occasionally) only the "real" SudokuExplainer. Experience with PGXplainer shows it's much faster (1to9only says 3 times; I have no precise timings, but 3 times seems to be a modest estimate IMO).
I don't take the idea that PGXplainer solves all the morph problems, but it does solve some of them. Which makes it a better candidate for replacing the "real" SudokuExplainer.
I'm personally switching to PGXplainer. Which nobody should care about, as I'm not searching for hard puzzles. I'm only working on analysing them. As a result, what I'm interested in is the min-expands, in order not to waste time on (possibly non-isomorphic but nevertheless) redundant puzzles.

by **mith** » Sun Aug 27, 2023 8:53 pm

denis_berthier wrote:Do you mean the SER will now appear in the min-expand list instead the minimal list? That's good for me.

For the T&E(3) database, yes. The expanded forms are already rated, the minimals are not. Just haven't included it in the past because I know it's not particularly relevant for you and you're the main one using the updates.

Do you mean all the intermediate puzzles between the min-expands and max-expands. I don't see the point.

It's really just for convenience. As I said, they could be generated easily (as can the minimals), but it's already been done and I have the space so there's no point requiring anyone else to generate them.

One thing you could add to the min-expand list is some cabalistic sign on lines, meaning it's a new puzzle wrt to the previous version.

I'll provide this in a README or something rather than in the file itself, sure. Because the set of puzzles is closed for a given update (all puzzles related by operations "transform", "expand", "minimize", and "add" are generated before any update), the new puzzles will just be those after a particular ID.

It'd be much better to have a lower SER cutoff in it. As I said before, restricting it to 11.6+ would eliminate potentially interesting puzzles. Also, 11.6 would make no sense wrt to the types of chains/nets in SER:

Code: Select all
10.2 Dynamic + Forcing Chains (37-48 nodes) CRCD Forcing Chains 10.3 Dynamic + Forcing Chains (49-72 nodes) CRCD Forcing Chains 10.4 Dynamic + Forcing Chains (73-96 nodes) CRCD Forcing Chains 10.5 Dynamic + Forcing Chains (97-144 nodes) CRCD Forcing Chains 10.6 Dynamic + Forcing Chains (145-192 nodes) CRCD Forcing Chains 10.7 Dynamic + Forcing Chains (193-288 nodes) CRCD Forcing Chains 10.8 Dynamic + Forcing Chains (289-384 nodes) CRCD Forcing Chains 10.9 Dynamic + Multiple Forcing Chains (73-96 nodes) CRCD Forcing Chains 11.0 Dynamic + Multiple Forcing Chains (97-144 nodes) CRCD Forcing Chains 11.1 Dynamic + Multiple Forcing Chains (145-192 nodes) CRCD Forcing Chains 11.2 Dynamic + Multiple Forcing Chains (193-288 nodes) CRCD Forcing Chains 11.3 Dynamic + Multiple Forcing Chains (289-384 nodes) CRCD Forcing Chains 11.4 Dynamic + Multiple Forcing Chains (385-576 nodes) CRCD Forcing Chains 11.4 [Dynamic + Dynamic Forcing Chains (73-96 nodes) Region/Contradiction Forcing Chains] 11.5 [Dynamic + Dynamic Forcing Chains (97-144 nodes) Region Forcing Chains] 11.6 [Dynamic + Dynamic Forcing Chains (145-192 nodes) Cell Forcing Chains] 11.7 [Dynamic + Dynamic Forcing Chains (193-288 nodes) Double Forcing Chains]

Note that most of the terms used make no sense to me (Dynamic, Multiple Forcing, Contradiction Forcing, Double Forcing)
But what's sure is, something happens within SER level 11.4: a new type of chains (Dynamic Forcing Chains) starts to be considered.

Oh, it's much worse than this, as I alluded to in the previous post. The range for Dynamic + Multiple Forcing Chains (DFC+MFC) is actually 10.6-11.7 (in known puzzles), and the range for Dynamic + Dynamic Forcing Chains (DFC+DFC) is 11.2-11.9 (in known puzzles). (DFC+FC is 10.1-11.1). There's a huge overlap, and I would find it *much* easier to understand an 11.2 DFC+DFC (up to 48 nodes) than an 11.2 DFC+MFC (up to 256 - the 288 is an error in that list) for example.

The rating is just a sum of the base value (which is +0.5 per level for Dynamic chains; 8.5 for DFC, 9.0 for DFC+, 9.5 for DFC+FC, 10.0 for DFC+MFC, 10.5 for DFC+DFC) and the value from the node count, which corresponds to 0.2 for every doubling of the node count (but awkwardly alternating between 3/2 and 4/3 for steps, rather than sqrt(2) every time - if they were sqrt(2) we'd already have at least one more 11.9 in mike's 20c). The specific type of Dynamic Forcing Chain (Contradiction, Region, Cell, Double) is not related to the rating at all other than that some types are more likely to have more nodes. The expanded form 11.8s have all four types represented (the 11.9s are all DCFC+DFC, Contradiction). But if I ever use D*FC+DFC that's why.

I'll try to write up some definitions of these at some point, but I'm going to have to consult the code to figure out exactly how SE approaches them. (For example, a Forcing Chain should be equivalent to an Alternating Inference Chain? But I don't think SE is coded as AICs. Multiple Forcing Chains include Region and Cell Forcing Chains. Not sure about Double.)

As for me, until very recently, I had used (occasionally) only the "real" SudokuExplainer. Experience with PGXplainer shows it's much faster (1to9only says 3 times; I have no precise timings, but 3 times seems to be a modest estimate IMO).
I don't take the idea that PGXplainer solves all the morph problems, but it does solve some of them. Which makes it a better candidate for replacing the "real" SudokuExplainer.
I'm personally switching to PGXplainer. Which nobody should care about, as I'm not searching for hard puzzles. I'm only working on analysing them. As a result, what I'm interested in is the min-expands, in order not to waste time on (possibly non-isomorphic but nevertheless) redundant puzzles.

I currently use SukakuExplainer (tarek's fork), but really the only reason is that it supports multithreading. At some point I will just switch to PGXplainer and set up some parallelization via scripts.

by **eleven** » Sun Aug 27, 2023 9:00 pm

Look at the first 11.8 puzzle by Paquita as an example. It takes an experienced solver about 15 minutes to solve it on paper. Should it be posted it a "hardest sudokus" thread ? Same for a lot (i guess the majority) of T&E(3) puzzles.
About a year ago i said, that any solver, which seriously wants to rate extremely hard puzzles (which always was meant in the sense, hard to be solved manually) should have integrated the TH pattern (here) as solving method. But nobody seems to be willing to start such a job. Instead 1000's of easy puzzles were searched and published with high SER or T&E rating, pretending to be very hard, and giving new readers a totally wrong impression, what is needed to solve really hard puzzles manually (which is extremely time consuming, often boring and seldom satisfying).

Website · by **denis_berthier** » Mon Aug 28, 2023 3:42 am

mith wrote:Because the set of puzzles is closed for a given update (all puzzles related by operations "transform", "expand", "minimize", and "add" are generated before any update), the new puzzles will just be those after a particular ID.

Great. This closure under a precise set of operations is a major property of your DB. It provides some ground for theoretical analyses. I wish we could reach this also for the T&E(2) DB.

mith wrote:Oh, it's much worse than this,..

So, the cutoff will be lower and the number of puzzles much greater. Moreover, with the introduction of expansion in this T&E(2) DB, we'll have the same problem of redundancy as for the T&E(3) one. Can you publish a separate min-expand T&E(2) DB, with an anticipating field for the BpB rating?
The computation time for this rating is too high to do it for all the puzzles, but I'll classify a random sample at each SER. I'm interested to check if the results in Table 11.2 of [PBCS] extend to a larger DB (and of course, also interested to see if there's still no puzzle in B8B).
.

Website · by **denis_berthier** » Mon Aug 28, 2023 4:46 am

eleven wrote:Look at the first 11.8 puzzle by Paquita as an example. It takes an experienced solver about 15 minutes to solve it on paper. Should it be posted it a "hardest sudokus" thread ? Same for a lot (i guess the majority) of T&E(3) puzzles.
About a year ago i said, that any solver, which seriously wants to rate extremely hard puzzles (which always was meant in the sense, hard to be solved manually) should have integrated the TH pattern (here) as solving method. But nobody seems to be willing to start such a job. Instead 1000's of easy puzzles were searched and published with high SER or T&E rating, pretending to be very hard, and giving new readers a totally wrong impression, what is needed to solve really hard puzzles manually (which is extremely time consuming, often boring and seldom satisfying).

Let me first deal with the T&E(3) case. The thread name and goal are clear: T&E(3) puzzles. There's no claim of hardest in any sense other than being in T&E(3).
It happens to be true that all the known puzzles in T&E(3) are indeed in T&E(W2, 2) = T&E(B2, 2) = B2BB.
And it also happens to be true that they have the tridagon pattern with guardians. It's remarkable precisely because the only search criterion was being in T&E(3).
But it is not true that having this pattern makes them easy to solve. On the contrary, there are many ways of using this pattern and even after using it in very hard ways, the rest may still be a very hard puzzle in T&E(2). Moreover, there's no noticeable dependency on the SER.
So, based on which set of tridagon-related rules would you declare that a puzzle should be excluded from the DB because tridagon makes it easy?

As for the rest of your post, I think it raises a question I've already raised several times: what's the purpose of the "hardest" database?
"Hardest" has no meaning per se and "hardest for a manual solver" has still less meaning; the typical manual solver hardly knows what a Pair is. The only "advanced" technique he knows (by spontaneous invention) is T&E.
Now, if you refer to facts instead of general declarations, the "hardest" thread is mainly about SER-hardest puzzles, with no reference to human solvers (the small T&E(3) part of it is still there because there's nobody to move it to the T&E(3) thread).

If we were to follow your suggestions, all the puzzles that have an sk-loop or an exocet (whatever this means) or an MSLS or a uniqueness pattern should be excluded from the hardest DB [and the T&E(3) DB should be empty because all the puzzles have a tridagon].

Contrary to you, I think SE shouldn't be extended with new rules, but cleaned of all the rules other than its various types of chains (in particular all the uniqueness rules). This clean SE could be the basis for a more consistent rating system.
AND an extended and extensible SE would allow to see which puzzles benefit from special rules.
This is the basic idea of my ratings: specific patterns shouldn't take part in a general rating system. On the contrary, a general rating system is a background wrt which a pattern utility can be measured.
.

by **champagne** » Mon Aug 28, 2023 4:59 am

eleven wrote:Look at the first 11.8 puzzle by Paquita as an example. It takes an experienced solver about 15 minutes to solve it on paper. Should it be posted it a "hardest sudokus" thread ? Same for a lot (i guess the majority) of T&E(3) puzzles.
About a year ago i said, that any solver, which seriously wants to rate extremely hard puzzles (which always was meant in the sense, hard to be solved manually) should have integrated the TH pattern (here) as solving method. But nobody seems to be willing to start such a job. Instead 1000's of easy puzzles were searched and published with high SER or T&E rating, pretending to be very hard, and giving new readers a totally wrong impression, what is needed to solve really hard puzzles manually (which is extremely time consuming, often boring and seldom satisfying).

Hi eleven,

I fully agree that this has nothing to do with the thread first goal.

Having a wide sample of the TH variations was still in the target, but we have here two heavy sources of pollution

This hunt to catch a high SER around the TH pattern; this can not deliver the hardest sudoku,
This attempt to classify puzzles on parameters far away from the solving tools for manual solvers.

But this hijacking on a thread is so common that fighting against is just hopeless. :roll:

And we have a big chance to have the hardest puzzle somewhere in the PH database.

by **champagne** » Mon Aug 28, 2023 5:05 am

denis_berthier wrote: The thread name and goal are clear: T&E(3) puzzles.

??? I have a problem, I read
"The hardest sudokus (new thread)"
as thread name

Website · by **denis_berthier** » Mon Aug 28, 2023 5:26 am

champagne wrote:
denis_berthier wrote: The thread name and goal are clear: T&E(3) puzzles.

??? I have a problem, I read
"The hardest sudokus (new thread)"
as thread name

As the first puzzle in T&E(3) was also a high SER one, it took some time to realise this was a totally new domain of exploration and to create a new thread. But here it is: http://forum.enjoysudoku.com/t-e-3-puzzles-split-from-hardest-sudokus-thread-t40514.html
And this is where T&E(3) puzzles are indeed discussed, while anything about SER continues to be discussed here.

by **champagne** » Mon Aug 28, 2023 6:00 am

denis_berthier wrote:
champagne wrote:
denis_berthier wrote: The thread name and goal are clear: T&E(3) puzzles.

??? I have a problem, I read
"The hardest sudokus (new thread)"
as thread name

As the first puzzle in T&E(3) was also a high SER one, it took some time to realise this was a totally new domain of exploration and to create a new thread. But here it is: http://forum.enjoysudoku.com/t-e-3-puzzles-split-from-hardest-sudokus-thread-t40514.html
And this is where T&E(3) puzzles are indeed discussed, while anything about SER continues to be discussed here.

If I am right, the last post in this thread is dated March 2023...

Website · by **denis_berthier** » Mon Aug 28, 2023 6:17 am

champagne wrote:
denis_berthier wrote:As the first puzzle in T&E(3) was also a high SER one, it took some time to realise this was a totally new domain of exploration and to create a new thread. But here it is: http://forum.enjoysudoku.com/t-e-3-puzzles-split-from-hardest-sudokus-thread-t40514.html
And this is where T&E(3) puzzles are indeed discussed, while anything about SER continues to be discussed here.

If I am right, the last post in this thread is dated March 2023...

... which doesn't mean the T&E(3) domain is inactive:
- there have been many specific puzzles in the Puzzles section, with many different human and machine solvers showing interest in the topic;
- I've opened companion threads dedicated to specific analyses of puzzles in T&E(3) and related patterns:

http://forum.enjoysudoku.com/the-tridagon-rule-t39859.html

http://forum.enjoysudoku.com/how-to-deal-with-large-numbers-of-patterns-t40889.html

http://forum.enjoysudoku.com/ork-forcing-whips-ork-contrad-whips-and-ork-whips-t40189.html

I think huge threads like the "hardest" one lead to undefined goals. What you call hijacking of them is only the result of these undefined goals.