| View previous topic :: View next topic | 
	
	
		| Author | Message | 
	
		| Pat 
 
 
 Joined: 23 Feb 2010
 Posts: 207
 
 
 | 
			
				|  Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 8:43 am    Post subject: Pat # 176 # 9 |   |  
				| 
 |  
				| 
..8...6...4...2.7.5.....2.1.....6.1.....1.....2.5.4...8.6.....5.9.7...4...1...8..
 
 [ play ]
  	  | Code: |  	  | . . 8 | . . . | 6 . .
 . 4 . | . . 2 | . 7 .
 5 . . | . . . | 2 . 1
 -------+-------+------
 . . . | . . 6 | . 1 .
 . . . | . 1 . | . . .
 . 2 . | 5 . 4 | . . .
 -------+-------+------
 8 . 6 | . . . | . . 5
 . 9 . | 7 . . | . 4 .
 . . 1 | . . . | 8 . .
 
 
 | 
 the solution-path has an oddity, not very common, i wonder if you'll notice---
 |  | 
	
		| Back to top |  | 
	
		|  | 
	
		| tlanglet 
 
 
 Joined: 17 Oct 2007
 Posts: 2468
 Location: Northern California Foothills
 
 | 
			
				|  Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 1:07 pm    Post subject: Re: Pat # 176 # 9 |   |  
				| 
 |  
				|  	  | Pat wrote: |  	  | the solution-path has an oddity, not very common, i wonder if you'll notice---
 | 
 Pat, the only oddity I noticed is that basics completed the puzzle.
   
 Ted
 |  | 
	
		| Back to top |  | 
	
		|  | 
	
		| keith 
 
 
 Joined: 19 Sep 2005
 Posts: 3355
 Location: near Detroit, Michigan, USA
 
 | 
			
				|  Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 4:57 pm    Post subject: |   |  
				| 
 |  
				| Pat, 
 I did not notice anything unusual.  Of course, I expect that your puzzles might involve hidden sets and not "advanced" moves.
 
 The key for me was to figure out where the values 9 and 3 might fall.  I do these things on paper with no pencil marks.
 
 Best wishes,
 
 Keith
 |  | 
	
		| Back to top |  | 
	
		|  | 
	
		| Marty R. 
 
 
 Joined: 12 Feb 2006
 Posts: 5770
 Location: Rochester, NY, USA
 
 | 
			
				|  Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 6:56 pm    Post subject: |   |  
				| 
 |  
				| I guess I didn't go far enough with basics, but a Type 4 UR on 45 completed it since basics didn't do it for me. |  | 
	
		| Back to top |  | 
	
		|  | 
	
		| Luke451 
 
 
 Joined: 20 Apr 2008
 Posts: 310
 Location: Southern Northern California
 
 | 
			
				|  Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 7:11 pm    Post subject: |   |  
				| 
 |  
				| Howzabout a hint, Pat....before you reveal. |  | 
	
		| Back to top |  | 
	
		|  | 
	
		| Pat 
 
 
 Joined: 23 Feb 2010
 Posts: 207
 
 
 | 
			
				|  Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 2:11 pm    Post subject: |   |  
				| 
 |  
				| 
 a 5-move path uses only "basic" moves,
 surely that's the natural path
 but there is another path
 -- and it's just one move,
 perhaps more elegant
 |  | 
	
		| Back to top |  | 
	
		|  | 
	
		| arkietech 
 
 
 Joined: 31 Jul 2008
 Posts: 1834
 Location: Northwest Arkansas USA
 
 | 
			
				|  Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 2:53 pm    Post subject: |   |  
				| 
 |  
				|  	  | Code: |  	  | *--------------------------------------------------------------------* | 2      1      8      | 39     3579   3579   | 6      359    4      |
 | 69     4      39     | 1     *35689  2      | 359    7     *389    |
 | 5      36     7      | 34689  34689  389    | 2      389    1      |
 |----------------------+----------------------+----------------------|
 | 79     38     3459   | 2389   23789  6      | 34579  1      2389   |
 | 679    368    3459   | 2389   1      3789   | 34579  23589  2389   |
 | 1      2      39     | 5     *3789   4      | 379    6     *389    |
 |----------------------+----------------------+----------------------|
 | 8      7      6      | 2349   2349   1      | 39     239    5      |
 | 3      9      2      | 7      5-8    58     | 1      4      6      |
 | 4      5      1      | 2369   2369   39     | 8      239    7      |
 *--------------------------------------------------------------------*
 x-wing 8 will solve the puzzle with singles
 | 
 |  | 
	
		| Back to top |  | 
	
		|  | 
	
		| Pat 
 
 
 Joined: 23 Feb 2010
 Posts: 207
 
 
 | 
			
				|  Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 3:01 pm    Post subject: |   |  
				| 
 |  
				| 
 exactly
 
if you notice the X-wing,
 it becomes a 1-move puzzle
 
so,
 which path would you prefer ?
 |  | 
	
		| Back to top |  | 
	
		|  | 
	
		| arkietech 
 
 
 Joined: 31 Jul 2008
 Posts: 1834
 Location: Northwest Arkansas USA
 
 | 
			
				|  Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 3:24 pm    Post subject: |   |  
				| 
 |  
				|  	  | Pat wrote: |  	  | which path would you prefer ? | 
 I will ignore advanced moves while doing basics. Why? I don't know.
  |  | 
	
		| Back to top |  | 
	
		|  | 
	
		| Pat 
 
 
 Joined: 23 Feb 2010
 Posts: 207
 
 
 | 
			
				|  Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 3:32 pm    Post subject: |   |  
				| 
 |  
				| that's my normal approach, 	  | arkietech wrote: |  	  | I will ignore advanced moves while doing basics
 
 
 | 
 the 5-move path is what i'd consider natural
 
 i only went looking for something else
 because of the additional information i had
 
 
background:
 
 i was running some tests on a puzzle-collection for the Patterns Game --
 i had generated 386 puzzles
 at difficulty-levels which could be interesting for me,
 and i wished to post only those puzzles which were in fact worthy of interest
 
 used gsf's software to quickly obtain some measures --
 -B -f%(V?I2:99)x -q{NF}{B2B3}-G
i.e. ignore "singles" and count other moves ---B -f%(V?I2:99)x -q{NF}{B2B3H2T2}-G
 -B -f%(V?I2:99)x -q{NF}{B2B3H2T2H3T3H4T4}-G
 -B -f%(V?I2:99)x -q{NF}{B2B3H2T2H3T3H4T4W2W3W4}-G
 box\line, line\box
+ duos
 + larger subsets (trios, quartets)
 + X-wing, Swordfish, Jellyfish
 this only gives me a lower-bound on the number of moves needed,
 but that's enough to flag this puzzle as odd:
 
 at least 5 moves needed
until allowing X-wing, Swordfish, Jellyfish
 suddenly reduces to a 1-stage puzzle
 * lower-bound -- may need more moves (each stage may need more than one move);
 still, this information was sufficient for a
 reasonable suspicion that there are 2 paths which
 differ significantly in the number of moves needed.
 
 
finding an upper-bound is a bit messy
 . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . -
 change -B to -S and you quickly get an upper-bound;
. - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . -
 but the information is often not-very-useful,
 as it can be quite high
 (depends on the order in which the software finds various possible moves);
 
 to get a more meaningful upper-bound,
 it is necessary to test several isomorphs,
 = messy
 eventually i did take the time to solve it (both ways)
 |  | 
	
		| Back to top |  | 
	
		|  | 
	
		|  |