dailysudoku.com Forum Index dailysudoku.com
Discussion of Daily Sudoku puzzles
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

DB Saturday Puzzle: September 29, 2007

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    dailysudoku.com Forum Index -> Other puzzles
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
keith



Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 3355
Location: near Detroit, Michigan, USA

PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 11:35 am    Post subject: DB Saturday Puzzle: September 29, 2007 Reply with quote

Code:
Puzzle: DB092907  ******
+-------+-------+-------+
| . . . | 6 1 . | . 9 . |
| 6 . . | . . . | . 2 3 |
| . 5 . | . 3 . | 4 . 8 |
+-------+-------+-------+
| . . 2 | . 7 1 | . . 4 |
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
| 1 . . | 3 9 . | 7 . . |
+-------+-------+-------+
| 4 . 3 | . 2 . | . 7 . |
| 2 9 . | . . . | . . 1 |
| . 1 . | . 4 8 | . . . |
+-------+-------+-------+
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Earl



Joined: 30 May 2007
Posts: 677
Location: Victoria, KS

PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 2:37 pm    Post subject: Saturday DB Sept 29 Reply with quote

After basics, a skyscraper (-5), an x-y chain (-5) and the puzzle was reduced to singles.

Earl
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
keith



Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 3355
Location: near Detroit, Michigan, USA

PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 4:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The basics get me here:
Code:
+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| 3    2    8    | 6    1    4    | 5    9    7    |
| 6    47   479  | 589  58   579  | 1    2    3    |
| 79   5    1    | 2    3    79   | 4    6    8    |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| 589  36   2    | 58   7    1    | 369  35   4    |
| 5789 367  579  | 4    568  256  | 2369 1    2569 |
| 1    46   45   | 3    9    256  | 7    8    256  |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| 4    8    3    | 1    2    569  | 69   7    569  |
| 2    9    567  | 57   56   3    | 8    4    1    |
| 57   1    567  | 579  4    8    | 2369 35   2569 |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+

I can see nothing but chains.

Keith
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Earl



Joined: 30 May 2007
Posts: 677
Location: Victoria, KS

PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 4:20 pm    Post subject: Saturday DB Sept 29 Reply with quote

Keith,

I used an x-y chain to eliminate 5's from R4C1 and R6C9, which built a skyscraper in C1C8, eliminating the 5 from R5C9. Then just singles.
I think.

Earl
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Marty R.



Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 5770
Location: Rochester, NY, USA

PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 4:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My grid is identical to Keith's and I can't find a logical move.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Earl



Joined: 30 May 2007
Posts: 677
Location: Victoria, KS

PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 5:48 pm    Post subject: Saturday DB Sept 29 Reply with quote

Marty,

There is an x-y chain from R6C3 to R4C8 with a 5 pincer eliminating 5's from R4C1 and R6C9. That clears a skyscraper of 5's in C1 and C8, which eliminates the the 5 from R5C9. The rest is straight forward.

Earl
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Marty R.



Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 5770
Location: Rochester, NY, USA

PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 9:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Earl,

Kudos for finding that solution.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Asellus



Joined: 05 Jun 2007
Posts: 865
Location: Sonoma County, CA, USA

PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I too saw that XY Chain. But then, instead of the Skyscraper, I used ERs for the next step. (Because of so much recent interest here in ERs, I am on the lookout for them.)

In this case, we use the strong link on <5> in R6C36 and the 3 ERs in Boxes 7, 9 and 6. R4C4 can "see" R6C6 directly and R6C3 via the 3 ERs. Thus, the <5> in R4C4 is eliminated.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
TKiel



Joined: 22 Feb 2006
Posts: 292
Location: Kalamazoo, MI

PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

After the XY-chain, falling somewhere between the multi-coloring with two chains used by Earl and the grouped coloring used by Asellus, is a multi-coloring with three chains.

Code:

 *-----------------------------------------------------------*
 | 3     2     8     | 6     1     4     | 5     9     7     |
 | 6     47    479   | 589   58    579   | 1     2     3     |
 | 79    5     1     | 2     3     79    | 4     6     8     |
 |-------------------+-------------------+-------------------|
 | 89    36    2     | 58    7     1     | 369   35    4     |
 | 5789a 367   579   | 4     568   256   | 2369  1     2569  |
 | 1     46    45B   | 3     9     256b  | 7     8     26    |
 |-------------------+-------------------+-------------------|
 | 4     8     3     | 1     2     569c  | 69    7     569C  |
 | 2     9     567   | 57    56    3     | 8     4     1     |
 | 57A   1     567   | 579   4     8     | 2369  35    2569  |
 *-----------------------------------------------------------*
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TKiel



Joined: 22 Feb 2006
Posts: 292
Location: Kalamazoo, MI

PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 8:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The basics get me here...I can see nothing but chains.

Quote:
My grid is identical...I can't find a logical move.



Why do we consider an XY-wing a satisfactory move but an XY-chain as less than logical and something to be used only when there is nothing else?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Marty R.



Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 5770
Location: Rochester, NY, USA

PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 11:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TKiel wrote:
Quote:
The basics get me here...I can see nothing but chains.

Quote:
My grid is identical...I can't find a logical move.



Why do we consider an XY-wing a satisfactory move but an XY-chain as less than logical and something to be used only when there is nothing else?


I don't know if I gave a different impression, but I'm fine with XY-Chains. Unfortunately, I didn't catch this one.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Johan



Joined: 25 Jun 2007
Posts: 206
Location: Bornem Belgium

PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 12:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

Why do we consider an XY-wing a satisfactory move but an XY-chain as less than logical and something to be used only when there is nothing else?


Perhaps xy-wings are easier to spot, because only 3 cells are involved, xy-chains using more than 5 cells are a little more harder to detect and are often called a cumbersome way, it looks like T&E(not IMO) when using seven, eight, nine ore more intermediate bivalue links, leading you to the two pincer cells, eliminating the common pincer cell digit for solving the puzzle.
Nevertheless Tracy is right about this topic, when nothing else is found the "inferior" logical step becomes the superior solving step.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
TKiel



Joined: 22 Feb 2006
Posts: 292
Location: Kalamazoo, MI

PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 9:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
the "inferior" logical step becomes the superior solving step.


Nicely phrased. Has a poetic ring to it.



I know I spent a lot of time trying to find something other than the XY-chain that Earl said he used and I'm also not one who thinks of them as T&E.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    dailysudoku.com Forum Index -> Other puzzles All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group