eleven wrote:Nice catch, Mauricio.

I only read about this trick with unique rectangles, but of course symmetry can be used either.

btw i dont see any reason, why a "hardest" puzzle should be minimal (this is not the patterns game).

Champangne, did i understand that right, that this second puzzle is harder for your solver than all the known 11+ puzzles except maybe 3 or 4 of them ?

Then i wonder, if Explainer's 10.8 solution is not "easier" than the solutions, your solver prefers.

I also have a problem with strange q2 ratings. One example:

This puzzle with ER 10.4 has q2 rating 94, thats less many ER 2.6 puzzles !

- Code: Select all
`1....67......8..3....27...5...5....8..1..79......3..2.73.........27..6..91...4...`

I know about the systematic guessing, it uses, and it makes some sense for hard puzzles, but there should be a remarkable rating difference to puzzles, which dont even need basics to solve.

May be I could rate differently the second and the last puzzle using the following process

1) first makes the puzzle minimal

2) then apply the symmetry of given

Nothing to object to such a process

and then you can for sure apply the symmetry of given.

Regarding the difficulty, you are right for the 2 first puzzles if you don't apply symmetry.

The second one has nothing special (I have nothing to comment about the first one which is not solved).

The third one has several "nearly EXOCETS" leading to a much easier soluton.

Comparing with SE rating that just gives a rating for the "hardest move" is somehow useless.

It could however be that SE has some tools I should introduce in my solver. From what I have seen up to now, it is likely working equally with hidden sets and naked sets. My solver does not really work on hidden sets.

Last but not least, at these high levels of rating, I am not at all convinced that SE finds the overall shortest nested chains in everey situation.

(but I shoul not say that before I have a better view on that part of the program).

champagne