The New Sudoku Players' Forum

[tarek]

Apparantly, Pappocom software rates puzzles that require only doubles to solve as hard & not Very hard......
Therefore although beatiful puzzles....the following are all non Superior puzzles:

Puzzle#002 (Ruud)
Puzzle#004 (ab/tarek)
Puzzle#006 (vidarino)
Puzzle#012 (gsf)
Puzzle#019 (vidarino)
Puzzle#022 (Ruud)
Puzzle#030 (vidarino)
Puzzle#036 (Ruud)
Puzzle#084 (JPF/tarek)
....

These will be replaced mostly by puzzles posted by the same compiler in the thread.........

tarek

[Pat]

Apparantly, the Pappocom software rates puzzles that require only doubles to solve as Hard – not Very Hard

that's true for some puzzles
but it is certainly not a general rule,
we've seen Pappocom puzzles rated Very Hard which could be solved by a duo.


some examples:

• { www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,18209-2075701,00.html -- broken link } #33 (2006.Mar.19) — [·:·:· ]
  
• { www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,18209-2132071,00.html -- broken link } #39 (2006.Apr.30)

[Pat]

This thread started nicely,
but ended causing a headache.

My rankings---

tarek, you are discovering that rating the puzzles is tougher than generating them:

I think the confidential part of Pappocom's software is the RATING of puzzles.

Generating a valid puzzle is easy---

The tricky part is to then ensure that the resulting puzzle is of reasonable difficulty and reasonably interesting for solvers.

there is no simple answer on ratings.

~ Pat

[Pat]

20 clues

Code: Select all

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

it scores 3

tarek, evidently i don't understand your method of rating the puzzles.

i'd think Ocean's recent puzzle should rate quite high:
1 X-wing + 2 trios.

but i'm not a computer -
is there perhaps a simpler solution-path??

[tarek]

Hi Pat,

The score has nothing to do with difficulty, it has to do with consistancy & reproducability..........

for reproducability, scritinising the puzzle against the Quads (& possiblu UR) will insure reproducability.......

the puzzle posted by Ocean has many Quads (Hidden & naked), but only the x-wing remains...

Removing the Quads scrutiny.....

It needs hidden triple/naked quad & a Naked triple/Hidden triple & an x-wing totalling 11 on the consistancy score (Excellent)........

It brought to my attention that it had the same pattern as one of my replacement puzzles for #84 which also scored the same as Ocean's, however Ocean's puzzle overall is more difficult needing an extra box-line interaction.....

after replacing all puzzles, I'll post the rankings sorted according to my normal solver, consistancy scores would then be next to each....

I have been trying to generate some puzzles following the fully symmetric puzzles, & this pattern was the easiest to generate.....

I will therefore just change the configuration slightly of my puzzle to an equivelant & post it as a replacement, here it is

Code: Select all

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

if you tried solving Ocean's puzzle, then this would be almost identical.

& my replacement for puzzle 4 is just a joy to solve, I chose it although it wasn't as difficult as other possible replacements because it showed consistant variability it scored 7 without the scrutiny of the quads & scored 4 when they were present, No hidden triples & no x-wings, it NEEDS 4-5 different non single/non Box line interaction steps, & what a nice start

Code: Select all

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

tarek

[tarek]

I've looked through the thread & found only theses replacements:

Code: Select all

Puzzle #006 (vidarino)
 . 1 5 | . . . | . 3 . 
 . . . | 6 1 5 | . . . 
 8 . . | . . 9 | . 7 . 
-------+-------+------
 . . . | . . . | 7 1 2 
 . . . | . 6 . | . . . 
 3 4 7 | . . . | . . . 
-------+-------+------
 . 7 . | 3 . . | . . 6 
 . . . | 5 2 7 | . . . 
 . 2 . | . . . | 3 4 .

will be replaced by:

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

Puzzle #019 (vidarino)
 . 8 . | 3 . 5 | . 2 . 
 3 . . | . . . | . . 5 
 . 5 . | . . . | . 1 . 
-------+-------+------
 . . 7 | . 1 . | 3 . . 
 2 . . | 5 . 7 | . . 8 
 . . 6 | . 4 . | 7 . . 
-------+-------+------
 . 3 . | . . . | . 6 . 
 1 . . | . . . | . . 4 
 . 6 . | 9 . 2 | . 3 . 

will be replaced by:

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

Puzzle #030 (vidarino)
 9 4 . | . 8 . | . 7 2 
 7 . . | 9 . 4 | . . 8 
 . . . | . 2 . | . . . 
-------+-------+------
 . 9 . | . . . | . 2 . 
 6 . 7 | . . . | 4 . 1 
 . 8 . | . . . | . 6 . 
-------+-------+------
 . . . | . 3 . | . . . 
 5 . . | 1 . 8 | . . 6 
 1 6 . | . 4 . | . 5 9 

will be replaced by:

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


Puzzle #002 (Ruud)
 . . 5 | 7 . . | . . . 
 . . . | . 9 3 | . . . 
 . . 7 | . . 1 | 6 . 4 
-------+-------+------
 2 . . | . . 8 | . 6 . 
 . . . | . 2 . | . . . 
 . 1 . | 4 . . | . . 5 
-------+-------+------
 5 . 4 | 8 . . | 3 . . 
 . . . | 6 3 . | . . . 
 . . . | . . 2 | 9 . .

will be replaced by:

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

I still need one to replace gsf's #012 & Ruud's #022 & #036.......Could the corresponding compilers provide replacements (any that can't be solved using doubles only but NEED 1 or more of the following to solve [Any form of triple, X-wing]), I'll wait for 7 days for a reply....

Also as some of the puzzles posted by compilers have the same clue distribution (some of Ocean's, myself & others), would it be possible for them to repost their puzzles with some row,column,band permutations so that no 2 puzzles look exactly the same (It saves me some time), I'll also wait for 7 days for that.

Thanx,

tarek

[gsf]

I still need one to replace gsf's #012

(edit) just finished a scan of ~7M fresh SM puzzles

Code: Select all

# these puzzles solve with singles and one x-wing

# 25 clues diagonal symmetric minimal (VII)

. . .  7 6 .  . . .
. 4 .  . . 1  3 . .
. . 8  . 5 .  . 6 .

. . .  2 . .  . 8 .
. 3 2  . . .  7 . 1
. . 7  . . 6  . . 2

. 8 .  9 1 .  6 . .
. 9 3  . 2 .  . 5 .
. . .  . . .  . . .

# 28 clues pi rotational (180 degrees) symmetric minimal (V)

. 2 .  . 1 6  . . 3
3 9 .  . 5 .  . . .
. . 6  9 . .  . . .

9 8 .  . 3 5  . . 1
. . .  . . .  . . .
4 . .  7 9 .  . 5 6

. . .  . . 1  4 . .
. . .  . 8 .  . 2 5
5 . .  4 6 .  . 1 .

# 24 clues vertical symmetric minimal (VI)

. . .  3 . 8  . . .
. 2 .  . . .  . 9 .
. 5 1  . . .  3 6 .

. . 8  7 . 4  1 . .
3 . .  . . .  . . 9
. . 5  . . .  7 . .

. 8 .  . 6 .  . 3 .
2 . .  . . .  . . 1
. 9 .  . 8 .  . 5 .

# 28 clues diagonal and antidiagonal symmetric minimal (IV)
3 . .  . 6 8  . 7 .
. . .  . 3 .  4 . 9
. . .  5 . .  . 3 .

. . 7  6 . .  . . 4
4 2 .  . . .  . 6 5
5 . .  . . 7  1 . .

. 6 .  . . 9  . . .
1 . 2  . 5 .  . . .
. 4 .  8 7 .  . . 3

# 30 clues horizontal and vertical symmetric minimal (III)

1 4 .  3 . 5  . 8 2
. . 5  . . .  1 . .
2 . .  . 6 .  . . 7

3 . .  8 . 6  . . 1
. . .  . . .  . . .
5 . .  4 . 9  . . 6

7 . .  . 4 .  . . 3
. . 3  . . .  7 . .
8 6 .  2 . 7  . 9 5

# 28 clues full rotational (90 180 270 degrees) symmetric minimal (II)

. 7 .  2 . .  . 6 .
4 . .  . 3 .  . . 1
. . 9  4 . 6  8 . .

. . 7  . . .  1 . 6
. 3 .  . . .  . 5 .
5 . 1  . . .  4 . .

. . 8  7 . 4  2 . .
1 . .  . 2 .  . . 5
. 9 .  . . 3  . 4 .

# 28 clues full dihedral symmetric minimal (I)

. . 8  4 . 2  7 . .
. . .  . 7 .  . . .
7 . .  3 . 6  . . 8

8 . 9  . . .  1 . 5
. 5 .  . . .  . 6 .
2 . 6  . . .  8 . 3

3 . .  8 . 1  . . 6
. . .  . 4 .  . . .
. . 4  5 . 7  9 . .


[Ocean]

Also as some of the puzzles posted by compilers have the same clue distribution (some of Ocean's, myself & others), would it be possible for them to repost their puzzles with some row,column,band permutations so that no 2 puzzles look exactly the same (It saves me some time), I'll also wait for 7 days for that.

Thanx,

tarek

I have changed one:

Code: Select all

Puzzle #098 Variant (Ocean)
 . 2 . | 6 . 7 | . 1 . 
 . . 6 | . 8 . | 2 . . 
 . . . | 4 . 5 | . . . 
-------+-------+------
 3 . 2 | . . . | 5 . 9 
 . 4 . | . . . | . 6 . 
 6 . 5 | . . . | 1 . 2 
-------+-------+------
 . . . | 7 . 1 | . . . 
 . . 7 | . 9 . | 6 . . 
 . 6 . | 5 . 2 | . 8 . 

Didn't spot any others with identical patterns, but will have a second look later.

[tarek]

these puzzles solve with singles and one x-wing

I have changed one:

Code: Select all

Puzzle #098 Variant (Ocean)

Didn't spot any others with identical patterns, but will have a second look later

thanx gsf & Ocean,

You puzzles gsf indeed need an x-wing to solve even when scrutinised with Quads.....

As you well know type VI & Type VII are not 180 degree symmetrical, the rest of symmetry tupes have 180 degree symmetry as default.

so Puzzle #012 gsf should now be:

Code: Select all

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

Puzzle #98 Ocean would now be:

Code: Select all

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

As there was no response in 7 days regarding #22 & #36, one of gsf's puzzles replaces #22 as follows:

Code: Select all

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

& one of mine replace #36

Code: Select all

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

I will now update the list & then hopefully spot 2 puzzles that look the same & change one [Edit: I just performed a face-lift on my puzzles to insure no 2 look exactly the same, Also included was one of Ocean's, If any still remain, inform me & LASER surgery should be possible ......

I will update the (if I can) the list the ronk supplied at the end, & I'll post rankings for all as follows: General difficulty, Consistantcy points (up to level of Hidden triple), Consistantcy points (up to level of Quads), Possibly Consistancy score up to level of colouring (includ. UR & Fish & finned fish)

tarek

tarek

[Pat]

— and to celebrate the closing of the "superior" list, { www.TimesOnline.co.UK/article/0,,18209-2202623,00.html — broken link } The Sunday Times #44 (2006.June.4) is very superior — seems way above their usual level — i suspect it would rate quite high in our "superior" Topic

Code: Select all


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



— ·:· — an X-wing and 2 trios
— ·:· — or is there a simpler way ??

[tarek]

— and to celebrate the closing of the "superior" list The Sunday Times #44 (2006.June.4) is very superior — seems way above their usual level — i suspect it would rate quite high in our "superior" Topic

Indeed a nice superior, the consistancy marks (4) show that it needs a naked triple (with a hidden triple counterpart) & a hidden double (with a naked triple counterpart) The rest is variable but an x-wing is definitely not needed to solve.

tarek

[Pat]

Indeed a nice superior; the consistancy marks (4) show that it needs a naked triple (with a hidden triple counterpart) + a hidden double (with a naked triple counterpart), the rest is variable but an X-wing is definitely not needed.

thanks, tarek!
i did use an X-wing,
but i had a feeling i was doing things the hard way -
will look again when not so tired---

[doduff]

This is kind of off topic, but when I look at the inlin list of superior puzzles it looks like a quilt pattern. Maybe that is just because all the puzzles are symetric in some way. I'll have to try some out.

[Archangel]

— and to celebrate the closing of the "superior" list, The Sunday Times #44 (2006.June.4) is very superior — seems way above their usual level — i suspect it would rate quite high in our "superior" Topic

I am a newbie. I do not know anything about X-Wings etc.

But I applied my amateur's program in Fortran 77 (!) which simply applies the fundamental rules (just detecting the digits appearing only once in a row or a column or a block, without considering doubles etc); it stopped at a scheme like this:

Code: Select all

569 1 69 | 8 2 34 | 49 7 34569
3 689 6789 | 5 4679 47 | 2 489 1
56789 2 4 | 369 679 1 | 89 3589 3569
---------------------------------------------
4689 7 1 | 3469 4689 2348 | 5 349 349
2 3469 369 | 3469 4569 345 | 7 1 8
489 3489 5 | 1 4789 3478 | 6 2 349
---------------------------------------------
489 489 289 | 7 1 2458 | 3 6 2459
1 3468 2368 | 24 458 9 | 48 458 7
4789 5 2789 | 24 3 6 | 1 489 249

Then simply trying r1c3<>6 my program went on and solved the puzzle.
So what ?

[ab]

— and to celebrate the closing of the "superior" list, The Sunday Times #44 (2006.June.4) is very superior — seems way above their usual level — i suspect it would rate quite high in our "superior" Topic

I am a newbie. I do not know anything about X-Wings etc.

But I applied my amateur's program in Fortran 77 (!) which simply applies the fundamental rules (just detecting the digits appearing only once in a row or a column or a block, without considering doubles etc); it stopped at a scheme like this:

Code: Select all

569 1 69 | 8 2 34 | 49 7 34569
3 689 6789 | 5 4679 47 | 2 489 1
56789 2 4 | 369 679 1 | 89 3589 3569
---------------------------------------------
4689 7 1 | 3469 4689 2348 | 5 349 349
2 3469 369 | 3469 4569 345 | 7 1 8
489 3489 5 | 1 4789 3478 | 6 2 349
---------------------------------------------
489 489 289 | 7 1 2458 | 3 6 2459
1 3468 2368 | 24 458 9 | 48 458 7
4789 5 2789 | 24 3 6 | 1 489 249

Then simply trying r1c3<>6 my program went on and solved the puzzle.
So what ?

I presume you mean r1c3=6. That's what's known as a backdoor single. Basically it's a guess and you see where it leads. If you guess right then that's fine, but if you're solving by hand and you guess wrong, then it can be a mess.

I wrote a solver that uses backdoor singles to finish puzzles that it can't do by logical deduction, but there are some puzzles that don't fall to backdoor singles. Look here at Ocean's puzzle for example.