dailysudoku.com

peterj · Joined: 26 Mar 2010 Posts: 974 Location: London, UK

A wing

daj95376 · Joined: 23 Aug 2008 Posts: 3854

Hmmm! I've had my reservations about the use of pseudo-cells, but I previously accepted them as harmless. With Peter's solution, even though I understand his intent, I'm not so sure that every use of a pseudo-cell is harmless.

peterj · Joined: 26 Mar 2010 Posts: 974 Location: London, UK

Danny, so first off I am definitely not wedded to the term 'pseudocell' and don't have a dogmatic view on insisting such a move is a 'wing'! I am just trying to communicate my solution.
I started using it because I noticed in this forum that people often described short xy-chains as 'xy-wings with pseudocell' and use terms like 'extended' or 'transport' as a qualifier on a pattern name.
I have since used it quite frequently on m-wing and w-wings where I have seen the 'pattern' but then one end needs a bit of work to fit the template! I feel that it describes how the solver sees his/her solution and, for a learner coming to this forum as I was/am, it might be an aid to starting to look for more complex chains. That's certainly how I started!
I agree you could apply such terms in ridiculous situations but I am not sure your xy-chain example is fair. If something has a formal name accepted by the community it should be used. AFAIK the move above does not have a formal name (other than a generic 'chain' or 'AIC') and so calling it a 'w-wing using pseudocell' is intended as a description. I suppose it's indicative rather than normative.
I think the problem becomes where to draw the line - is a pseudocell in a block somehow acceptable but not if well separated in a row or a column? I suppose one could perhaps limit the term to URs. Ultimately the only robust approach is to limit oneself to formally agreed names (by who?) and AIC or SIS descriptions - which I think would be a shame.
Interesting debate.

tlanglet · Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:35 pm Post subject:

Another "almost".

tlanglet · Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 3:02 pm Post subject:

I agree with the comments already offered by Peter. Recently I responded here to a request by Marty on the definition of "pseudocell" and specifically questioned if it included more than two cells.

I do not have a strong leaning on the issue, but my preference is to restrict usage to ADPs and to one cell extensions (for a total of two cells) for general bivalue patterns; "transport" or "extend" would be used for multiple steps/cells.

Ted

daj95376 · Joined: 23 Aug 2008 Posts: 3854

Please forget that I mentioned the topic.

We'll leave it up to the individual to decide if the use of pseudo-cell seems appropriate in a post.

Regards, Danny

Marty R. · Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2010 4:31 am Post subject:

I played the Type 3 UR (15) with 27 pseudo cell, X-Wing (1) and XY-Wing (679), flightless with pincer transport.