Wecoc, thanks for replying! That explains a lot. I see now that you'd already replied to creint's original question when I wrote mine, but it wasn't visible then (probably because new users' posts require approval). Just wanted to mention that in case someone wonders why I questioned things you'd already explained (now that your reply appears before mine).
Wecoc wrote:I can find one solution by adding r3c2 to the subset (and using digits 258), which gives a naked single (2)r2c1, but the presented puzzle doesn't really hint that.
That's the correct solution indeed. Maybe I should have made it a bit more obvious adding the hint on r3c2, but because it was the only way to crack the puzzle anyway I
decided to make it a bit more difficult. Sorry for that, I still consider you successfully cracked it
So I accidentally stumbled on the correct solution, and even the correct way to find it? Good to know. I had no way of knowing until now that I saw this:
Hidden subset: You may think same logic can be applied, but since it's
a subset of unknown number we can't use it to remove non-shared candidates directly (for example if only 2 squares are marked, a third one could be part of the subset) so other steps are required to make use of it. It's complicated and very case-specific so I won't say anything else in this one, my recommendation is don't use it till the end
That does explain what you were after, and why my solution worked, but the naming is very very confusing. You should definitely call it something other than "Hidden subset" because the latter has a specific and well-known sudoku meaning and it's
very different from yours. If you color two cells and call it "Hidden subset" the only logical interpretation is a "Hidden Pair" and not a "subset of unknown number" where extra cells may need to be added. I kind of suspected you meant something like that, though, because you didn't call it "Hidden Pair" but it seemed too weird to be true. If you want to use that kind of a hint, I'd suggest something like "Unknown subset" instead, accompanied with a clear explanation that the colored cells could be just part of it. Edit: that's a pretty poor name too as it's not a sudoku pattern and doesn't really hint that more cells need to be considered. How about A*LS (=(Almost...) Locked Set)? That would be a valid pattern name for a cell group with (possibly) more digits than cells.
Btw, I really don't think you need or should make these puzzles harder by purposely adding ambiguity. A bit related to that:
If there's more than one possible candidate, we can use trial and error to deduce which one is the correct one.
...
Trial and error may be required in the last steps.
Stating it like that will put off many manual solvers, and even more if it's actually true. If a good player needs actual T&E, the puzzle is probably too difficult for normal consumption. I'd suggest you kept your puzzles a bit easier at least until any glitches in your rules are worked out. Testing them is pretty tedious otherwise.
The second one may seem broken at first glance but it also has one solution, and as an extra clue I'll say in that case the subset is a hidden pair.
I might take a closer look at that puzzle later. However, I'm still confused by this:
What is that "single's chain" anyway?
Usually I call it 'logic chain' but here is defined as
Single's Chain so I used that terminology.
I think the more common and easily understood name would be "Simple Coloring", if that's indeed what you mean ("logic chain" would be really bad because it could mean anything). Still, your colored cells don't represent a normal Simple Coloring pattern, at least not one used by your SudokuWiki reference. Some definitions do use grouped nodes, though, and I guess that would sort of work here, but either way it wouldn't be a chain capable of eliminating anything -- which is why I can't really see it as a pattern. At most it's a chain fragment.
Such pattern-based tips are ambiguous anyway if it's not clearly stated whether degenerate patterns are acceptable or not. If all available (even very advanced) moves are exhausted before turning to the tips, it's quite possible that those patterns become degenerate.
That's a very good point. I tried making those hints "unskippable" so they can't become degenerate, and as far as I tried I always have to use them in one step or another to get the unique solution, but I can't guarantee this will always be the case. The chain is easily the most delicate since it involves more squares.
I think you should guarantee that or it might get very frustrating to try to rely on those hints. Here's the second puzzle after using all available SudokuWiki moves and the "Hidden subset" hint (you said it was a pair so I assumed 14 because they were the only digits with both left in those cells):
- Code: Select all
+---------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 3 168 2 | 5 9 478 | 1467 1467 14 |
| 4 169 19 | 236 236 237 | 8 1367 5 |
| 7 68 5 | 3468 1 348 | 2 346 9 |
+---------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 12 24 1489 | 89 5 6 | 3 149 7 |
| 6 19 38 | 7 4 38 | 15 159 2 |
| 5 7 349 | 1239 23 *1239 | *46 469 8 |
+---------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| 12 24 7 | 1469 68 *19 | *145 1458 3 |
| 9 5 6 | 1234 238 1234 | 47 1478 14 |
| 8 3 14 | 14 7 5 | 9 2 6 |
+---------------+-----------------+-----------------+
I don't see anything resembling an X-Wing in the indicated cells (at most a Sashimi one with 1s, but which way would it be oriented anyway?). Has it degenerated, or has something else been messed up? Also, I still don't see much of a "Single's chain" (as an elimination capable pattern), though the 8s seem to be the most likely candidate for what you could possibly mean (if so, does it mean we could eliminate (8)r3c6 or what?).
Thank you for trying it
No problem. Like I said, I kind of like the idea, but I think you should work on the implementation details to avoid unnecessary confusion and resulting frustration. The "Naked Pair" and "X-Wing" hints were pretty unambiguous and worked as expected (for the first puzzle), but the "Hidden subset" and "Single's Chain" need new names (at least the first one) and better definitions.
Also, like I said, I think you should use easier puzzles to hone the details so there's no more ambiguity left. I don't think anyone is willing to solve puzzles as difficult as these manually unless the rules are crystal clear and can be trusted to work as expected. Otherwise there's too much risk of wasting time by making mistakes and never knowing if it was the player's or the puzzle designer's fault. If that happens, it's unlikely that the player will bother to try again.