The New Sudoku Players' Forum

[CathyW]

Normal service has resumed- no real challenge today. I thought we might have a really "Deadly" one after the last couple of days. Oh well, at least I should get some more work done

Except that my copy of the Killer Sudoku book turned up in the post - puzzle selection ranges from "Gentle" to "Deadly". A few of them have been given extra clue numbers but the last one should be a proper challenge - estimated time of 90 minutes.

[dalek]

How many grades are there between 'tricky' and 'deadly'? And where did you get the book from. I ordered mine from Amazon and according to them the estimated time of arrival is still next Tuesday. How can I wait that long?

Agree with you about today's puzzle - very easy compared to yesterday.

[CathyW]

I ordered it direct from the Times bookshop - wasn't expecting it until next week.

The puzzle grades are Gentle, Moderate, Tricky, Tough and Deadly as per the first five that were published on 31st August - there's only five Deadly ones out of 110 puzzles. Should keep us out of mischief for a while though

[scuba_chris]

I ignore the catagory, as it doesn't seem to bear much relation to the actual puzzle. The last 3 were all "tricky", I did my first one fairly easily (2 days ago, I could not complete the one yesterday, and I managed to complete the one today with a stuggle). I realise I must be quite slow as they tend to take me 2 hours or more, rather than the suggested 23 - 27 minutes !

[PaulIQ164]

I'm becoming increasingly proficient at messing upp the Killer Su Dokus. I don't know if I'm using a tactic that doesn't work properly, or else just being lazy and/or stupid, but it's two days in a row now I've gone wrong.

[dalek]

So far they have all followed the same pattern. First, look for gimmes - typically 2 square 17s, 16s, 4s or 3s. The also keep an eye out for good old 10 (in 4, as today) 6 (in 3), 23 and 24 (in 3). Typically, you get more bang from your buck by setting down your options here - they are relatively few yet they can significantly narrow down the still totally option free squares. Then do the inny/outy thing (where you sum the total squares in a box to 45). Today, for me, that was particularly helpful when getting to grips with the bottom left hand box. And bob should be your uncle.
I have found this week that I have been using more sudoku techniques and less maths after getting the first few maths-reliant numbers, I don't know if this is good or bad. There also seem to be a variety of ways to set about these puzzles - for example, today I was some way in before I realised there was a 2 square '4' in column 5. That's a gimme and you would have thought I would have needed it to get started - but no.
I mucked up today's fiendish though. Swings and roundabouts.

[Karyobin]

I'm becoming increasingly proficient at messing upp the Killer Su Dokus.

Yes!

I don't know if I'm using a tactic that doesn't work properly, or else just being lazy and/or stupid, but it's two days in a row now I've gone wrong.

YES!! (I know I sound like Father Jack, but I'm glad it's not just me.)

GIRLS!!!

[Bigtone53]

My work colleague, a principled chap who like me does the crossword, Fiendish and Sudoku each day (ocassionally before starting work), stopped buying The Times on Tuesdays as a protest against the recent price increase. Unfortunately, I spoil it by having to buy an extra copy when I make a complete pigs ear of the Sudokus. I find however that it is easier to unwind a mistake on Killer than the Fiendish[/quote]

[PaulIQ164]

Just fixed it, on the fourth attempt.

[Enigma]

I must admit I'm slightly surprised about the troubles folk have seen later this week on the killers... I still firmly believe that they're unlikely to touch the real fiendish or superior sudokus in terms of difficulty once you've got used to them. I took 15 mins for both of Weds and Thurs puzzles, and don't think there was anything particularly tricky in techniques required to solve them, they just weren't as simplistic as the usual ones because they had quite a few bigger cages. There was one of the killers last week where I used an x-wing almost accidentally - I'm not really used to using them at all having only come across them in some of the Sunday Times Superiors in the last couple of months, so I was surprised when I saw the possibility of using one in a killer.

The nice thing about the killers is the combination of sudoku techniques with elementary mental arithmetic. Unless someone can create killers that do require more advanced sudoku solving techniques, I think we may have peaked in difficulty. Given most regular contributors seem to have reduced times required for fiendish puzzles down to the 10-15 min range, I suspect that once we've all got used to the killers, it will be a rare one that takes us over the 15 min mark. For me it took a good couple of months of practise to reduce the time required for the harder sudokus... the killers are dropping out much more quickly with the average apart from yesterday and Weds being nearer the 6-7 min mark.

A bit rambly, I know, but any thoughts ?


And I feel allowed to ramble on a day when I discovered my baby boy no longer has a hole in his heart !

[PaulIQ164]

It's not that I'm at any point getting stuck on the Killers; it's just that my (in my head) perfect logic always winds me up needing to put two 3s in a row, or whatever.

I'm not sure the following is the correct way to phrase this, but: congratulations on your baby boy no longer having a hole in his heart.

[Enigma]

Are you using base 10 or base 9 for the arithmetic ?

I don't believe the Times has specified whether we should be, so maybe that's another flaw in their rules.....

And you phrased it perfectly, thank you.

[PaulIQ164]

But base 9 arithmetic wouldn't ever have any 9s in it...

[Karyobin]

I wondered about that, too. You'd have to include zero as an option.

[Enigma]

But of course I was assuming that you were probably using one of your infamous transformations and reading 9 as 10 or 0.

Or maybe the Times would change the rules to say you could, even if it didn't make sense.