View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
cgordon
Joined: 04 May 2007 Posts: 769 Location: ontario, canada
|
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 2:39 pm Post subject: March 28 Hard - Try it ! |
|
|
The Hard sudokus are rarely discussed in the forums because they involve no advanced techniques. But often they are quite challenging in their own way. I thought today’s was a good one. There are no 9’s for a start. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
crunched
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 Posts: 168
|
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't understand how people solve any of these puzzles (except maybe the "easy" ones) in just a matter of minutes. Actually, it seems like the VH puzzles are usually easier than the hard--or oftentimes even medium puzzles to get through a lot of the basics.
This hard puzzle took me a LONG time to resolve. I had to use an x-wing (or did I use 2 x-wings altogether? I can't entirely remember now) to finally crack the puzzle.
Did anyone actually solve this puzzle without using a wing? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sdq_pete
Joined: 30 Apr 2007 Posts: 119 Location: Rotterdam, NL
|
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was wondering the same. It took me quite a time and I took recourse to a number of advanced techniques (W-wing, X-wing, XY-wing). Whether any of them were really necessary or not I don't know, but I seemed to need them to progress.
Peter |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Marty R.
Joined: 12 Feb 2006 Posts: 5770 Location: Rochester, NY, USA
|
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | Did anyone actually solve this puzzle without using a wing? |
Yes. I can't provide any details, it was just subsets and locked candidates, although this one might've been a little more stubborn than most. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cgordon
Joined: 04 May 2007 Posts: 769 Location: ontario, canada
|
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I believe by definition, the Hards should not require wings. I used basic stuff for this one but it took me a while. Looking at the 9's in the middle box finally did it.
Last edited by cgordon on Fri Mar 28, 2008 6:01 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nataraj
Joined: 03 Aug 2007 Posts: 1048 Location: near Vienna, Austria
|
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I did the puzzle just now on paper.
No wings. Definitely.
First breakthru when I spotted the naked pairs 19 and 68 in col 2, then NP 27 box 1/row 2 and naked triple 369 in col 6 which solved 2 and 4 in box 5. No major obstacles after that. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nataraj
Joined: 03 Aug 2007 Posts: 1048 Location: near Vienna, Austria
|
Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And to add a few words about timing - quote: "a matter of minutes":
this puzzle took me 21 minutes.
that is rather long for a "hard", but not excessive.
"hard" from this site or in my local paper, and "fiendish" in the London Times always can be solved by basic means and usually take me between 15 and 20 minutes.
When I reach 20 minutes for a "hard" and I am still stuck, I then decide that I am suffering from a mental block (my brain refuses to see the clues), I let it rest for like half a day and when I come back the puzzle solves itself
When I solve a puzzle in under 14 minutes I am disappointed, because I feel that it was too easy .
I cannot remember ever having solved a puzzle in less than 10 minutes (I don't do "easy" or "medium"). The initial phase ("sweeping the floors") alone takes a few minutes.
Of course, the online version, with auto-sweep on, allows much shorter times. But then, what is the point? I am not trying to prove how fast I can write or how fast I can click. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
keith
Joined: 19 Sep 2005 Posts: 3355 Location: near Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This one is quite simple, once you see it! (But, yes, it took me quite a while.)
R7C6 is <5>, R3C1 is <8>.
The <2> and <7> in C2 force a pair <27> in B1 in R2.
Look at C6. R1C6 is <7>, and the <9> in B5 lies in C6.
Which solves R6C4 as <2>. All that remains is to recognize that there is a pair <19> in C2 and in R2.
Keith |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Victor
Joined: 29 Sep 2005 Posts: 207 Location: NI
|
Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Should do this more often! Like the good old days, when we didn't use candidate numbers, and some people even did puzzles without putting a single mark on the paper. I used to like Sudoku-san for puzzles like this - basics + X-wings, but I noticed recently that the site seems to have bit the dust, which is a pity. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
keith
Joined: 19 Sep 2005 Posts: 3355 Location: near Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Victor wrote: | Should do this more often! Like the good old days, ... |
Victor,
I still do this, when I can! If you look at the starting grid, the <27> pair is quite obvious after one sweep. The <19> pairs are also obvious without pencil marks.
But, I did not see the rest of it, and marked in the candidates before seeing C6 is the key.
If you want a source for the hardest puzzles that do not require advanced methods, (except maybe X-wings) try Fiendish Sudoku. I became a much better solver (of the basics) by doing these puzzles without pencil marks or, at most, with minimal PM's.
Here is the current most fiendish puzzle:
Code: | +-------+-------+-------+
| 8 1 6 | 4 . . | 5 . 9 |
| 5 . . | . 8 . | . . 4 |
| 4 3 . | . . 5 | . 8 . |
+-------+-------+-------+
| . 5 . | 1 . . | . 4 2 |
| 1 2 . | 5 . 6 | . 7 . |
| 9 . . | . . 8 | . 5 . |
+-------+-------+-------+
| . . . | 9 . . | 2 1 . |
| 2 . . | . 5 . | . 9 . |
| 7 . . | . . 3 | 4 6 . |
+-------+-------+-------+ |
http://www.fiendishsudoku.com/sudoku.html
Best wishes,
Keith |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cgordon
Joined: 04 May 2007 Posts: 769 Location: ontario, canada
|
Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As an interesting comparison, I did today’s Hard (31 Mar) in no time at all using the auto-sweep. Unlike Nataraj I have no compunctions about using auto-sweep - and would never, like Keith, attempt a puzzle without pencil marks. It’s like the old Masters - Rembrandt, Mike Angelo etc: they only did the good bits and had someone else prepare the canvas. Although it could also be my natural laziness. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nataraj
Joined: 03 Aug 2007 Posts: 1048 Location: near Vienna, Austria
|
Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | Like the good old days, when we didn't use candidate numbers, and some people even did puzzles without putting a single mark on the paper. |
And we had sudoku, but without the grid, only a few numbers on a sheet of paper!
just kidding of course...
There's this Dilbert episode, goes like this:
Wally and the guys: "[in the old days ...] we had to program in zeroes and ones, and sometimes we didn’t even have ones. I once wrote a database program using only zeroes."
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
crunched
Joined: 05 Feb 2008 Posts: 168
|
Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 12:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="nataraj"] Quote: | There's this Dilbert episode, goes like this:
Wally and the guys: "[in the old days ...] we had to program in zeroes and ones, and sometimes we didn’t even have ones. I once wrote a database program using only zeroes."
|
That is funnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnny |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ravel
Joined: 21 Apr 2006 Posts: 536
|
Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 10:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
nataraj wrote: | I once wrote a database program using only zeroes." | Ah yeah, the good old times, when it was possible to write a program without any bugs |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Victor
Joined: 29 Sep 2005 Posts: 207 Location: NI
|
Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Keith. I haven't previously tried this site. Nice paper-and-pencil puzzle. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|