| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
keith
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 3355
Location: near Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
 Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 12:39 pm Post subject: DB Saturday Puzzle: 11 August, 2007 |
 |
|
Only one advanced move is needed ...
| Code: | Puzzle: DB081107 ******
+-------+-------+-------+
| 8 . . | 1 4 . | . 6 . |
| . 6 3 | . . . | 7 4 . |
| . . 4 | . . 2 | . . . |
+-------+-------+-------+
| 6 . . | 4 3 . | . 2 . |
| . . . | . . . | . . . |
| . 8 . | . 5 1 | . . 6 |
+-------+-------+-------+
| . . . | 6 . . | 9 . . |
| . 9 1 | . . . | 6 3 . |
| . 4 . | . 9 5 | . . 7 |
+-------+-------+-------+
|
... but you have to find the right one!
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Earl
Joined: 30 May 2007
Posts: 677
Location: Victoria, KS
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 3:39 pm Post subject: DB August 11 |
|
|
After basic moves, a four-step xy-chain from R9C1 to R7C6 pinches <3> of R9C4 to open the puzzle, and a UR eliminates <8> from the same cell. I think I saw a jelly fish, but they are too complex for me. Not a good fisherman
Earl |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TKiel
Joined: 22 Feb 2006
Posts: 292
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| keith wrote: | | Only one advanced move is needed... |
I think this should be "only one move is needed".
Here is the grid before doing any eliminations. Notice the strong links on <2> in R2 & C7? That eliminates <2> from r9c1 and turns the puzzle completely into singles.
| Code: |
*--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
| 8 257 2579 | 1 4 379 | 235b 6 2359 |
| 1259A 6 3 | 589 8 89 | 7 4 12589a |
| 1579 157 4 | 35789 678 2 | 1358 1589 13589 |
|----------------------------+----------------------------+----------------------------|
| 6 157 579 | 4 3 789 | 158 2 1589 |
| 1234579 12357 2579 | 2789 2678 6789 | 13458 15789 134589 |
| 23479 8 279 | 279 5 1 | 34 79 6 |
|----------------------------+----------------------------+----------------------------|
| 2357 2357 2578 | 6 1278 3478 | 9 158 12458 |
| 257 9 1 | 278 278 478 | 6 3 2458 |
| 23 4 268 | 238 9 5 | 128B 18 7 |
*--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keith
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 3355
Location: near Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tracy,
That's the move I noticed. I did not notice that the basics do not solve any cells as <2>, and the turbot fish / skyscraper is there from the beginning.
Or, you could notice a UR, and X-wing, a W-wing. Then, you still seem to need this move, or resort to a chain.
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marty R.
Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 5770
Location: Rochester, NY, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TKiel wrote: | | keith wrote: | | Only one advanced move is needed... |
I think this should be "only one move is needed".
Here is the grid before doing any eliminations. Notice the strong links on <2> in R2 & C7? That eliminates <2> from r9c1 and turns the puzzle completely into singles. |
When I first started learning, the first site I used said that subsets and locked candidates were the basic techniques and the rest were advanced. I realize that many of those "advanced" techniques don't seem so advanced after one gets to know them, but still, I would think strong link/turbot fish/multi-coloring or whatever it's called would qualify as advanced by most standards.
Tracy, it downright scares me to think of what techniques I don't even know how to execute that you still view as basic. 
I used a Type 4 Rectangle, an X-Wing and then a Finned X-Wing finished it off. As is often the case, I don't know if all three of my moves were needed, since I just play them when I see them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Asellus
Joined: 05 Jun 2007
Posts: 865
Location: Sonoma County, CA, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 11:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not surprisingly, I, too, saw the thing with <2>s immediately. Besides being called a Turbot Fish or 2-String Kite or whatever, it is also a...
Color Wing! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TKiel
Joined: 22 Feb 2006
Posts: 292
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| keith wrote: | | I did not notice that the basics do not solve any cells as <2>, and the turbot fish / skyscraper is there from the beginning. |
Neither did I. I used all the usual suspects until I probably reached a point similar to Earl, when I had to start actually looking for things and not just noticing them. It was then I saw that move. But the beauty of SS is that it also has an undue button, which came in handy after I read Earl's post and tried searching for the UR on <8> (which I never did find). I undid the puzzle back to the beginning and happened to notice that the multi-coloring was still there. I thought it was particularly unusual for a puzzle of this general caliber to only need one move to turn it into singles and that's why I posted it.
| Marty R. wrote: | | Tracy, it downright scares me to think of what techniques I don't even know how to execute that you still view as basic. |
You give me too much credit. While I too have come to think of techniques that I use frequently as less than advanced, it was probably just a poorly phrased sentence on my part. I meant to emphasize the fact that it was basically one move that needed to be found (followed by singles which, less face it, almost don't count) and not a whole bunch of basic moves and one advanced move and then a bunch of singles that needed to be found, if that one move was noticed at the start of the puzzle. It downright scares me that you know and use the same techniques (and maybe more) that I use and you do it with P&P while I have to use software.
| Asellus wrote: | | Besides being called a Turbot Fish or 2-String Kite or whatever, it is also a... |
I though about posting the litany of names for this pattern but didn't for the fact that on this forum, most will recognize the term I used, even it they use/ prefer different. "Color wing' sounds like a paraphrase of 'coloring' and since I learned it as the latter, that is what I'll stick with. It's also one reason I'll never use 'skyscraper' or '2-string Kite' as descriptive terms (the other being the fact that Havard states at the beginning of his post that he doesn't want to rename things that already have names, then goes ahead and does it anyway) . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
