| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ravel
Joined: 21 Apr 2006
Posts: 536
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 12:59 pm Post subject: VH+ by Pat (game 0040) |
 |
|
| Code: |
+-------+-------+-------+
| 9 . . | . . 4 | . . 2 |
| . 8 . | . 3 . | . 5 . |
| . . 7 | 9 . . | . . . |
+-------+-------+-------+
| . . 2 | . . . | . . 6 |
| . 4 . | . 6 . | . 1 . |
| 5 . . | . . . | 3 . . |
+-------+-------+-------+
| . . . | . . 6 | 1 . . |
| . 1 . | . 4 . | . 3 . |
| 6 . . | 2 . . | . . 8 |
+-------+-------+-------+
|
>>> play online | hint wrote: | | A "double" w-wing doubles the w-wing |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
keith
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 3355
Location: near Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I had a few X-wings and W-wings.
One W-wing was "double", in that the pincer cells were a remote pair. The last one was extended by coloring.
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marty R.
Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 5770
Location: Rochester, NY, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I used a variety of moves, probably not all of them necessary. They included X-Wings, both regular and finned, an ER, a Type 4 UR and a couple of W-Wings, the second of which finished it off. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ravel
Joined: 21 Apr 2006
Posts: 536
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To explain the hint - after x-wings for 5 and 8 you come here:
| Code: | *--------------------------------------------------------------------*
| 9 5 3 | 6 1 4 | 78 78 2 |
| 4 8 6 | 7 3 2 | 9 5 1 |
| 1 2 7 | 9 #58 @58 | 4 6 3 |
|----------------------+----------------------+----------------------|
| 378 79 2 | 1 5789 @35789 |>578 4 6 |
| 37 4 89 |#58 6 379 | 2 1 579 |
| 5 6 1 | 4 2 @789 | 3 >89 79 |
|----------------------+----------------------+----------------------|
| 78 79 5 | 3 89 6 | 1 2 4 |
| 2 1 89 | 58 4 79 | 6 3 579 |
| 6 3 4 | 2 579 1 | 57 79 8 |
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
|
The 58's in r3c5 and r5c4 are connected with strong links both for 5 and 8 in column 6 (the one for 8 is a grouped strong link or you take the one from box 8).
So we can eliminate 58 from r4c5 and - with the pair 79 in row 4 - 7 from r4c7.
Now there is another 58 w-wing in r4c7 and r5c4, connected by the 8's in row 6. It takes out 5 from r4c6 and the puzzle is solved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keith
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 3355
Location: near Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 12:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
ravel,
I saw the strong links for 5 and 8, both in Box 8. The eliminations are the same.
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Asellus
Joined: 05 Jun 2007
Posts: 865
Location: Sonoma County, CA, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 12:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
I would call those 58s a Remote Naked Pair. The "activating" links are not as obvious as those in a chain of 4 identical bivalues, but the logic is the same.
It is good to recall that a W-Wing was known as a Semi-Remote Naked Pair before it was christened "W-Wing" in this forum almost exactly 1 year ago. So, a "double" W-Wing is just a (whole) Remote Naked Pair. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keith
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 3355
Location: near Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 4:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Asellus wrote: | I would call those 58s a Remote Naked Pair. The "activating" links are not as obvious as those in a chain of 4 identical bivalues, but the logic is the same.
It is good to recall that a W-Wing was known as a Semi-Remote Naked Pair before it was christened "W-Wing" in this forum almost exactly 1 year ago. So, a "double" W-Wing is just a (whole) Remote Naked Pair. |
Asellus,
Though the eliminations are the same, I think the logic to identify the pair is different. There are at least three cases of a remote pair, which is:
| Quote: | Two cells that are not peers (are not buddies, do not "see" each other), and have the same pair of candidates, and those candidates can then be eliminated from the peers of those two cells.
|
(In the following, = is a strong link in an upper case candidate, - is a weak link.)
1. The cells are connected by a chain of cells having the same two candidates, for example, XY=XY=XY=XY.
2. The cells are connected by a chain having strong links in only one of the candidates, for example, XY=Xw=Xz=XY. w and z are any multi candidate strings, so long as we have strong links on X.
3. The cells are a double W-wing. There are two chains: XY-Xw=Xz-XY (which removes Y) and XY-Yw=Yz-XY (which removes X). In these two chains, only the two end cells are common.
My point is only that the logic for the eliminations may be the same, the logic for identifying the eliminations is very different. I think 1, 2, 3 above differ dramatically in their degree of difficulty.
Keith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
storm_norm
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 1741
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I like the pattern of the givens |
|
| 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
