## Times Killer sat 4 feb 2006

For fans of Killer Sudoku, Samurai Sudoku and other variants

### Times Killer sat 4 feb 2006

Is anyone else having probs with this one. Have tried it several times & end up going round in circles. I wonder if there is a clue incorrect.
seabass

Posts: 3
Joined: 04 February 2006

I haven't tried it myself, but if it's any help my Dad was trying it and he messed it up.
PaulIQ164

Posts: 533
Joined: 16 July 2005

Thanks for that. I have spoken to a friend who has also had problems.
seabass

Posts: 3
Joined: 04 February 2006

I messed it up too - relief to know that maybe there's something wrong with the puzzle. I'll try once more!
CathyW

Posts: 316
Joined: 20 June 2005

Bad news guys - according to DJApe's Perfect Sudoku software the puzzle has no solutions so there must be an error in there somewhere, so won't waste time trying to do it again - DJ has posted a Killer Samurai today if you want a challenge! www.djape.net
CathyW

Posts: 316
Joined: 20 June 2005

Thanks, have just given it one more go from a different angle and it definitely won't work. Am now consigning it to the bin & off to try the jumbo x word whilst watching England beat Wales!
seabass

Posts: 3
Joined: 04 February 2006

Not that I don't trust my Dad implicitly, but I had a crack at the puzzle myself and I reached an impasse - I was forced to put two 3s in a column. So it seems the evidence is pretty much overwhelming that it's a faulty puzzle.
PaulIQ164

Posts: 533
Joined: 16 July 2005

I tried this twice and got the same problem both times. There is a 7 in r9c5/6 and in r8c7/8, so there must be a 7 in r7c1/2/3. However, if you work the other numbers in the bottom third of the puzzle, and then add up the numbers in the bottom left block, the number in r6c2 must be a 7 - giving two 7s in one shape, which is illegal. I got this result twice, and on the second time persisted until I got two 3s in c3. Then I gave up. Glad someone has put this through a computer to prove it can't be done, as I was beginning to wonder! Killers usually give in to me if I hit them long and hard enough, and I don't like admitting defeat. Thanks all for restoring my sanity.
black dog

Posts: 3
Joined: 04 February 2006

The numbered cages all add up to 405 = 9*45, so there is evidently a problem with more than one cage, have to wait until they print the answers, as Puzzle not on Times website yet
Crazy Girl

Posts: 189
Joined: 08 November 2005

Crazy Girl wrote:The numbered cages all add up to 405 = 9*45, so there is evidently a problem with more than one cage, have to wait until they print the answers, as Puzzle not on Times website yet

Yes, I concluded within minutes that this puzzle was not solvable. The Times has gone ahead anyway and printed a so-called "solution". Faulty of course - just look at the '35' box near the bottom LH. Its occupants add up to 36!

Don't know whether I can be bothered to complain though.
Bernard Stay

Posts: 94
Joined: 22 March 2005

Yes - the 35 cage should have been 36, and a 14 cage in row 3 adds to 13 in the solution given in The Times today. You would think somebody would check the puzzles before they are printed!
CathyW

Posts: 316
Joined: 20 June 2005

Strangly enough the Killer Puzzle is attributed to Pappocom, and on The Times website they have not corrected this error.
Crazy Girl

Posts: 189
Joined: 08 November 2005

Bernard Stay wrote:Yes, I concluded within minutes that this puzzle was not solvable.

Well, they said it was "Tricky"
jf27

Posts: 34
Joined: 18 September 2005

CathyW wrote:Yes - the 35 cage should have been 36, and a 14 cage in row 3 adds to 13 in the solution given in The Times today. You would think somebody would check the puzzles before they are printed!

Shows that they don't read this forum, though. If they had seen this thread they would surely have checked. The fact that there is no apology suggests they are still blissfully unaware. Has anyone emailed them?

black dog

Posts: 3
Joined: 04 February 2006

### Re: Times Killer sat 4 feb 2006

seabass wrote:Is anyone else having probs with this one. Have tried it several times & end up going round in circles. I wonder if there is a clue incorrect.

This puzzle was demonstrably invalid. (It is easy to prove there are two 1s in the bottom middle minigrid: one part of the 6-shape and one part of the 9-shape. But you cannot have two 1s in the same minigrid.) The Times screwed up again! The "solution" published today, 6 Feb depends, without any apology, on a wrong sum - bottom left 8+4+7+9+6+2=35!

Why do they do this? Last Oct 22 when they published an invalid Samurai I offered them an automatic solver to make sure this didn't happen again. They didn't even reply. Today I have offered to write then an automatic killer solver but I do not expect an answer. No matter how much human effort goes into making puzzles fun, symmetrical, the right level of difficulty etc an automatic solver gives you a cast-iron guarantee that your puzzle is valid (i.e. has one solution and only one) and it is in machine readable form so it can talk to the printing machines in Wapping without human beings getting in the way. So there really is no excuse for the Times
Philip Roe

Posts: 12
Joined: 24 October 2005

Next