The SUPERIOR thread

Everything about Sudoku that doesn't fit in one of the other sections

Postby Red Ed » Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:20 pm

As a benchmark, how about this commercial one from Gakken Mook Pocket Puzzle 100 Series 20: Pocket Number Place 8 ...
Code: Select all
+---+---+---+
|...|916|...|
|..3|...|1..|
|.4.|...|.9.|
+---+---+---+
|1..|.8.|..7|
|5..|3.9|..1|
|6..|.2.|..5|
+---+---+---+
|.9.|...|.4.|
|..8|...|2..|
|...|458|...|
+---+---+---+
Obviously I don't claim this as my own! But I'd like to know how it rates, to give me and maybe others something to try to beat in future.
Red Ed
 
Posts: 633
Joined: 06 June 2005

Postby vidarino » Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:42 pm

Red Ed wrote:But I'd like to know how it rates, to give me and maybe others something to try to beat in future.


It's well under par for this thread, I'm afraid. It solves with nothing but singles and locked candidates. A "superior" puzzle needs at least some pairs and/or triples and/or X-Wings, as far as I know.

That doesn't have to mean that your puzzle is easy, though. The ones in the "inferior" thread are singles only, but they are by far the hardest singles-only puzzles I have ever seen.

Vidar
vidarino
 
Posts: 295
Joined: 02 January 2006

Postby tarek » Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:38 pm

ab wrote:
tarek wrote:Nice one henk, I actually in one step could spot 6 x-wings (although probably only 2 were needed).......

Having said that, There are no doubles or triples needed to solve...

Tarek

there are if you remove R1C1 and R9C9

No there still isn't , those x-wings are too powerful.

ab wrote:I can make an improvement on Vidarino's latest qualifying offering too:

It is an improvemrnt, one of the naked doubles is swapped with a naked triple, as it is an improvement ... It will go on the list.

Tarek
User avatar
tarek
 
Posts: 2608
Joined: 05 January 2006

Postby Red Ed » Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:49 pm

OK, I get it.

How about this. Not so pretty at first sight until you realise that each pair of diametrically opposite digits always adds to 10 (in the solution as well as in the puzzle itself).
Code: Select all
. . 1 . 9 . . . 2
2 . . 3 . . 1 . .
. . . . . 4 3 . .
. . . . . . 5 4 6
. 7 . . . . . 3 .
4 6 5 . . . . . .
. . 7 6 . . . . .
. . 9 . . 7 . . 8
8 . . . 1 . 9 . .
I think it needs an X-wing ...
Red Ed
 
Posts: 633
Joined: 06 June 2005

Postby ab » Tue Mar 28, 2006 12:14 am

Red Ed wrote:I think it needs an X-wing ...


Yes it does, and pairs and locked candidates. Should make the grade:)
ab
 
Posts: 451
Joined: 06 September 2005

Postby ab » Tue Mar 28, 2006 12:18 am

tarek wrote:
ab wrote:
tarek wrote:Having said that, There are no doubles or triples needed to solve...

Tarek

there are if you remove R1C1 and R9C9

No there still isn't , those x-wings are too powerful.


Tarek

ah yeah you can use locked candidates instead!
ab
 
Posts: 451
Joined: 06 September 2005

Postby JPF » Tue Mar 28, 2006 12:38 am

Would this one go on the list ?

Code: Select all
Puzzle #04

 . . 4 | . . 2 | . . .
 . 1 5 | . . 4 | . 7 .
 . . 8 | . 1 . | 9 . .
-------+-------+-------
 8 . . | . . 7 | . . .
 4 . . | . . . | . . 3
 . . . | 2 . . | . . 6
-------+-------+-------
 . . 9 | . 2 . | 1 . .
 . 7 . | 8 . . | 6 3 .
 . . . | 6 . . | 2 . .


JPF
JPF
2017 Supporter
 
Posts: 3752
Joined: 06 December 2005
Location: Paris, France

Postby tarek » Tue Mar 28, 2006 1:27 am

Red Ed,
Good one, definitely a superior

JPF wrote:Would this one go on the list ?

Unfortunately not, it is harder than a superior. it had the required number of doubles, but it needed something more than the hidden triples to solve.

All rules of posting the Superior puzzles are found with the updated Superior puzzle list at the start of this thread (you follow this link:http://forum.enjoysudoku.com/viewtopic.php?p=23814#p23814)

There is also my personal rankings of the 1st 62 puzzles here

Tarek
User avatar
tarek
 
Posts: 2608
Joined: 05 January 2006

Postby Red Ed » Tue Mar 28, 2006 8:22 am

Here's another sum-to-10 grid, this time with rotational symmetry and needing an x-wing to solve:
Code: Select all
 . . 1 2 . . . . .
 . . . . . 3 4 . .
 . 2 9 . . . 3 . 7
 . 9 . . 3 . . . 4
 . . . 9 . 1 . . .
 6 . . . 7 . . 1 .
 3 . 7 . . . 1 8 .
 . . 6 7 . . . . .
 . . . . . 8 9 . .

This slightly less pretty sum-to-10 needs a hidden triple:
Code: Select all
 . 1 . . . . . 2 .
 . . . . . 8 3 . .
 . . 4 5 7 . . . .
 6 3 5 . . . . . 9
 . . . . . . . . .
 1 . . . . . 5 7 4
 . . . . 3 5 6 . .
 . . 7 2 . . . . .
 . 8 . . . . . 9 .
Red Ed
 
Posts: 633
Joined: 06 June 2005

Postby tarek » Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:39 am

Wow Red Ed,

That first puzzle, I was able to construct 8 x-wings in the same step, for that it will be a superior. Would not score highly on the difficulty or variability rankings though.

The second puzzle needs a hidden triple & (a naked triple or a hidden double), again a superior........

Tarek
User avatar
tarek
 
Posts: 2608
Joined: 05 January 2006

Postby Ruud » Tue Mar 28, 2006 12:29 pm

I was admiring these sum-to-10 submissions by Red Ed, when I suddenly realized that they are not minimal.

Take this beauty, for instance:
Code: Select all
 . . 1 2 . . . . .
 . . . . . 3 4 . .
 . 2 9 . . . 3 . 7
 . 9 . . 3 . . . 4
 . . . 9 . 1 . . .
 6 . . . 7 . . 1 .
 3 . 7 . . . 1 8 .
 . . 6 7 . . . . .
 . . . . . 8 9 . .


Because I know it is a sum-to-10, it can easily be minimized to:
Code: Select all
 . . 1 2 . . . . .
 . . . . . 3 4 . .
 . 2 9 . . . 3 . 7
 . 9 . . 3 . . . 4
 . . . 9 . . . . .
 . . . . . . . . .
 . . . . . . . . .
 . . . . . . . . .
 . . . . . . . . .


I'm not sure if there is more that can be eliminated from these puzzles.

Another thought: Of course you lose symmetry in the clues, but the first step in solving it restores the symmetry. In fact, these puzzles can be solved without ever losing symmetry along the way.:D

Ruud
Ruud
 
Posts: 664
Joined: 28 October 2005

Postby vidarino » Tue Mar 28, 2006 12:39 pm

Hehe, quite correctly observed, Ruud.

This type of symmetry popped up in another thread, actually.

I still haven't implemented the idea i aired there (symmetry similar to N vs 10-N, but with the pairings unknown at start time), but I might get around to it soon. Unless someone beats me to it.:)
vidarino
 
Posts: 295
Joined: 02 January 2006

Postby tarek » Tue Mar 28, 2006 1:13 pm

if the sum to (N) was on a 90 degrees rotational symmetry...... Then you would have an extra cnstraint because you are looking at 4 cells (A killer taste):D [i.e. highlight all symmeterical clue cells with a colour, all cells in that particular colour should sum up to 10], we know that we still can't use the central cell, but it would be interesting to see the cells in box 5

Tarek
Last edited by tarek on Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
tarek
 
Posts: 2608
Joined: 05 January 2006

Postby tarek » Tue Mar 28, 2006 1:25 pm

I'm going to post the next rankings as soon as we hit the 75 mark, the general formula would depend on variability primarily.........
if there are 8 x-wings that can be deduced by looking at a given grid candidates The score would be 1 x-wing, however 2 x-wings that can't be deduced from looking at one grid would score 2 x-wings, this would go for every technique....

then the weighting would be bised towards Hidden triples mostly & x-wings.

The formula would then be:
Code: Select all
Hidden Triples*5+XWings*2+Naked triples+Hidden doubles+Naked doubles*0.5


What would be your suggestions ???

Tarek
User avatar
tarek
 
Posts: 2608
Joined: 05 January 2006

Postby ab » Tue Mar 28, 2006 3:03 pm

So you don't rate locked candidates at all Tarek? I think they're fun.
ab
 
Posts: 451
Joined: 06 September 2005

PreviousNext

Return to General