Hi Mike, I see that I'm cross posting with Hajime but I'll continue on anyway.
Something you don't appear to have covered is this move in the second puzzle.
- Code: Select all
*---------------------------------------------------------*
| 5 1789 136789 | 129 13789 1689 | 2789 2689 4 |
| 3689 4 36789 | 29 3789 689 | 5 1 2679 |
| 689 1789 2 | 5 4 1689 | 3 689 679 |
|-------------------+------------------+------------------|
| 23689 189 13689 | 7 129-8 5 | 1289 4 12369 |
| 2689 5 16789 | 3 *89 4 | 12789 2689 12679 |
| 4 1789 13789 | 6 129-8 *189 | 12789 5 12379 |
|-------------------+------------------+------------------|
| 189 3 89 | 4 19 2 | 6 7 5 |
| 19 2 5 | 19 6 7 | 4 3 8 |
| 7 6 4 | 8 5 3 | 129 29 19 |
*---------------------------------------------------------*
This is the diagonal equivalent of a claiming intersection : if there are 2 or 3 X's on a diagonal in the one box then X can be removed from the 6 cells in the box not on the diagonal.
Other possible (not substantial, but stylistic) quirks about intersections.
A. In your 1) if there is a naked or hidden pair on a diagonal, this can show up as two intersections using the same two cells but two different values.
B. It may be possible that a program looks for all intersections before reverting to singles logic. Depending on the puzzle that may speed up execution time but result in more intersections.
As I've cross posted I'll stop here.
<Edit> Re-reading the title of this thread I've realised that A and or B (to some extent) is what a human solver might do sometimes. It all depends on their experience and pattern spotting skills.
I think A happened twice for the first puzzle, so a clever human solver might have solved the puzzle with 4 less intersection moves than I said plus 2 Naked/Hidden pair moves.
Cheers, Leren