The New Sudoku Players' Forum

[DonM]

I have a question:
I'm used to a system where everyone starts a solution from the same place in the puzzle eg. after the SSTS (Simple Sudoku Techiques Set) position. In the puzzles being posted daily here, is everyone running the original puzzle thru the same basic moves before solving the puzzle? And if so, what are they?

So far, if I have entered any solution here, I've been simply using someone else's grid that shows the puzzle with pencilling and no other solution marks in it.

Thanks for any info.

Don,

I found the following definition of SSTS on the web today:

{Naked Single, Hidden Single, Naked Pair , Locked Candidates , Naked Triple , Naked Quad , Hidden Pair , Hidden Triple, Hidden Quad} , [ X-Wing , Swordfish , Simple Colors , Multi-Colors , XY-Wing ]

The moves in the curly brackets are what I understand to be "basics". The challenge of these threads appears to be to find a single non-basics move (after basics have been applied) after which the puzzle is solved with the only following moves being more basics but preferrably singles only. The terms in the square brackets are the elements of SSTS that would not be applied prior to "the move". If the full SSTS as above were applied then many of the puzzles in these threads would be solved within SSTS and there would be no challenge . The current puzzle would be a case in point - there some simple coloring moves that would complete it within SSTS. I also wouldn't include Jellyfish in basics.
Leren

Thanks Leren. That's a nice specific clarification.

fwiw: I know that the typical puzzles here are straightforward enough for a nice 'daily solving challenge', the more occasional SAM (Suggest A Move) puzzles are an attempt to present a bit of an extra challenge beyond the moves in the square brackets. However, no matter which type of puzzle, it's great to see a nice consistent group of solvers on this forum.

[Marty R.]

The challenge of these threads appears to be to find a single non-basics move (after basics have been applied) after which the puzzle is solved with the only following moves being more basics but preferrably singles only.

What is "preferable" about singles only? By the way, is my understanding of singles correct, that it consists of all basics except Locked Candidates?

[Leren]

The challenge of these threads appears to be to find a single non-basics move (after basics have been applied) after which the puzzle is solved with the only following moves being more basics but preferrably singles only.

What is "preferable" about singles only? By the way, is my understanding of singles correct, that it consists of all basics except Locked Candidates?

I was expressing a personal aesthetic preference for "singles only" after "the move". By singles I mean that a candidate is the only one left in a row, column, box or cell.

Perhaps others can clarify what they think the "challenge" of these threads actually is.

Leren

[DonM]

The challenge of these threads appears to be to find a single non-basics move (after basics have been applied) after which the puzzle is solved with the only following moves being more basics but preferrably singles only.

What is "preferable" about singles only? By the way, is my understanding of singles correct, that it consists of all basics except Locked Candidates?

Traditionally, STTE (singles to the end) has meant a cascade of singles (much as Leren describes them) to the end of the puzzle and does not consist of any other basic moves. The reason for this is that, again traditionally, the elegance of one solution over another has had to do with how effective a given solution is in breaking the puzzle down.

Thus, for so-called single-stepper solutions, if someone were to say 'singles to the end' when there are actually still some basic moves left that are required to finish off the puzzle then that would create a false impression that their solution is comparable to someone else's solution that actually is only 'singles to the end'.

[Marty R.]

I guess I never saw much of a difference between STTE and LCSTTE and whatever else there might be. I know that some people add those letters to the end of their solution, but the significance has escaped me. To me, there are basics and advanced moves and any one-stepper (or two or three) is as a good as any other as long as just basics remain.

Are there players who solve a puzzle with "X" number of steps and find out that LCSTTE remains and then go back to look for a solution which leaves only STTE?

[DonM]

I guess I never saw much of a difference between STTE and LCSTTE and whatever else there might be. I know that some people add those letters to the end of their solution, but the significance has escaped me. To me, there are basics and advanced moves and any one-stepper (or two or three) is as a good as any other as long as just basics remain.

Are there players who solve a puzzle with "X" number of steps and find out that LCSTTE remains and then go back to look for a solution which leaves only STTE?

I do. I often find solutions pretty quickly for average-difficulty puzzles, but usually spend far more time looking for the most elegant solution ie. the shortest and least-assumptive.

From around mid 2006 to mid 2012, there was almost constant solving of puzzles with ER=7.1 and above including ER>8.3 not infrequently on the Eureka forum. Manual solvers there took their solutions pretty seriously and it became understood that STTE meant singles-only to the end and that didn't include any basic methods. It was not unusual for people to check other solutions and if someone claimed STTE, but there was actually a naked pair, triple or locked candidates or somesuch, that person would be informed (in a nice way) that STTE didn't apply.

Btw, perhaps more than you wanted to know: For a time I ran the 'Eureka Challenge' where basic and advanced moves were given scores, from lower for basics to higher for things liked nets. The person with the lowest scored solution would 'win'. It was pretty fun over the one to two years it lasted.

While not perfect, it did work because everyone agreed on the basic premise that the better solutions used the fewest & simpler moves. So, for instance, if someone solved an ER=8.3 puzzle in 5 steps without using a net, that person would win over someone using 4 steps with a net.

[tlanglet]

The AUR(28) seems to be the popular solution technique for this puzzle...

AUR(28)r29c56[2r9c8=8r9c4]-r4c4=r6c6-(28=1)r29c6-(1=6=2)r9c18 => r9c8=2

Ted

[tlanglet]

Btw, perhaps more than you wanted to know: For a time I ran the 'Eureka Challenge' where basic and advanced moves were given scores, from lower for basics to higher for things liked nets. The person with the lowest scored solution would 'win'. It was pretty fun over the one to two years it lasted.

While not perfect, it did work because everyone agreed on the basic premise that the better solutions used the fewest & simpler moves. So, for instance, if someone solved an ER=8.3 puzzle in 5 steps without using a net, that person would win over someone using 4 steps with a net.

Don, I believe that I would enjoy the "Eureka Challenge", but it difficult for me to find sufficient time to work the current set of puzzles offered by Arkietech.

Ted

[DonM]

Btw, perhaps more than you wanted to know: For a time I ran the 'Eureka Challenge' where basic and advanced moves were given scores, from lower for basics to higher for things liked nets. The person with the lowest scored solution would 'win'. It was pretty fun over the one to two years it lasted.

While not perfect, it did work because everyone agreed on the basic premise that the better solutions used the fewest & simpler moves. So, for instance, if someone solved an ER=8.3 puzzle in 5 steps without using a net, that person would win over someone using 4 steps with a net.

Don, I believe that I would enjoy the "Eureka Challenge", but it difficult for me to find sufficient time to work the current set of puzzles offered by Arkietech.

Ted

Don't worry Ted. I don't have the time to devote to it either and won't be trying to revive it. I only mentioned it as an example of how seriously a lot of us took our attempts to make solutions as efficient/elegant as possible.