LPO Knocks Out World’s Hardest 36


A challenge posed by The Worlds Hardest Sudoku Book 36: Is there a route to the solution less advanced than pattern analysis? The puzzle is otherwise distinguished by a BARN right out of line marking, and a notable lack of givens information on the placement of 6’s.

The basic trace is too simple for comfort.

 

 

 

But it is delightful in brain based solving, as it closes with a BARN similar the one in Stuart solver analyzed 200.

 

 

Frustration followed, as none of the usual advanced methods advanced the cause, until . . .

looking along the edges of the panels, this elimination emerged from the top down freeforms: no 5-pattern can contain 5r1c9, because no freeform starting there can make it to r8.
Then I noticed the sashimi swordfish claiming the same victim. The finned fish works because the victim is in the fin box.

 

 

The resulting NE5 creates to final slink in the 9-chain ANL, and collapse follows.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Next is World’s Hardest 65, another 0.91. World’s Hardest Sudoku is not being hard enough. I’m trying to work in some UPE and ALS where they fit. Tell me what I’m missing.

 

 

Advertisements
Posted in Advanced Solving, Puzzle Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Colorful Ending to World’s Hardest 200


Here we translate into sysudokie notation the XY-chains and coloring that drag off World’s Hardest Sudoku 200, to its sudowiki solver solution. Hopefully you were better able to arrive at your own solution.

First are the new developments on the bv map, where a XY-chain ANL triggers boxline Nr4, which triggers boxline SEr9.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This brings in a naked triple and more XY railway, a 2 eliminating ANL, .  .  .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.  .  . and a 3 eliminating ANL.

The follow up

NE2=>NW2=>

NE3=>SE5

 

opens it up for another cluster, and r5:

not(blue and orange) => green or red

sends us looking for a bridge elimination.

Instead, yet another XY-chain expands both clusters, to trap 6r4c5  and wrap orange on r3.

Red leaves a single blue 1 on r4, and there’s nothing left to say.

Except that the review continues, without solver assistance, and with Worlds Hardest 36, with ratings falling to 0.91.

 

 

Posted in Advanced Solving, Puzzle Reviews | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Andrew’s Solver Tames Worlds 200


This post walks through the “very  hard” part of the solution path taken by  Andrew Stuart’s Solver through puzzle 200 of The World’s Hardest Sudoku Book by authors unknown. This is a remarkable turn of events for a blog devoted to manual solving, but there are reasons, and the results are good.

My interest in Andrew Stuart’s The Logic of Sudoku, now out of print, is renewed as I work on topics for the Sysudoku Guide pages. Although we differ on some topics, Andrew’s is a solver that can be confined to humanly practical methods.  It can serve, therefore, as backup for human solving.

Having made no progress on 200, I reluctantly turned to Andrew’s Solver as a way to include 200’s difficulty in the ongoing review, but also with an eye towards expanding my understanding and gathering telling examples of methods I couldn’t spot.

First in the SysOB is APE r8c12, where 3r8c2 is denied a partner by the 39 bv, and the 13 combination in ALS1356 in r8c567. I missed class the day unaligned APE was covered in The Logic.

Then a BARN or BNS1, a bent 4-set 1 2356 in the Sc4 bent region. The common remainder value is 6. Solver notes still have it as a “WXYZ wing”. There is still room on the grid to show the next in order, an XY-wing ANL.

Also from the XYZ-map, a classic, but dead  Death Blossom Lite (11/29/11) hinged at r6c6.

From the X-panel, a 3-chain ANL (black) extends into a 3-chain ANL confirming SW3.

 

 

 

 

Even on the 4-panel, the grouping on these almost nice loops is very difficult to see. You might need to bone up on Sudoku group theory.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consider the next unaligned pair exclusion a reaction to the grouped ANL removals, as the bv r5c5 becomes available as a target cell.  Combinations 45 and 46 are denied the target cells. The removal’s Cr5 box/line terminates 4r6c6.

 

 

 

 

 

The solver followed the Sysudoku phasing to this point, but now does the AIC scan prior to coloring. I confirmed that coloring is not effective just yet. The solver does a confirming AIC with a jaw dropping ALS node.

The ALS node

is based on the slinks between candidate groups in an ALS.

The removal of 3r9c9 brings a third ALS to bear on APE target cells r78c9, and 3r7c9 is allowed no partners. The blue/green cluster expands to trap two 4’s. An AIC confirming ANL is cobbled from 1-chain, 4-chain and XY-chain segments.

 

 

The solver continues with XY-chains, coloring, and a naked triple. In case you’d like to take it from here, the finish is reported next post.  The parade of diverse advanced methods in the solver solution, many weakly signaled and difficult to spot, justifies an extreme rating.  And it’s not over yet.

Posted in Advanced Solving, Expert Reviews, Extreme Solving, Puzzle Reviews, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

World’s 36 and 200 Basic, and More on 25


In this post, checkpoint traces on World’s Hardest 36 and 200, and a direct comparison with  two Strmckr solutions to Worlds 25. Also, a Gordon Fick contribution to the cause.

Here is Strmckr’s first solution, right out of line marking. It’s an almost nice loop AIC bringing the adjacent winks together to remove 2r1c7.

It looks easy, but it’s not, considering what you have to be looking for, to spot it. There are two multiple value cells and two AIC hinges involved. Strmckr’s “singles” collapse is rapid and complete.

At the point in the SysOB where AIC  hinges are  applied, I have two coloring clusters.

Instead of the pattern analysis and trial, I should have noticed the decisive trap. It’s that both blue and green remove 2r1c7, the same removal as Strmckr’s AIC ANL.

 

Coloring hastens the collapse as well. The blue/green cluster expands before 6r7c3 wraps green.

The approach towards a BUG explains why 25 can be very hard.

I’ve now released Strmckr’s 4/24/18 comment with his second solution.

 

It involves a cleverly selected ALS pair. Strmckr takes no credit for that, but instead, ascribes the  removals to “transport”, a forum concept whose definition does not respond to my search.

No worries. With the pair of 2’s as a restricted common, 4r9c7, and 6r7c7 qualify as ALS_XZ victims. Shortly after, 6r4c2 and 2r1c7 follow.

But there’s more.  Sysudoku’s own ALS_XZ expert Gordon Fick responded to the homework challenge and the ALS Partnering idea with an apt alternative.

Working with the bv 28r1c8, try the possible RC with 8r8c8. The r8 row has extra 8’s, but there is an SE ALS with 2 and a single 8.

 

 

 

 

Now for the checkpoint basic traces. First the basic rout of Very Hard 80, one of two rated second highest by Sudokubooks. Obviously not the monster.

If you’ve never read a trace, filling in the grid as you go, try it out. It took me several tries to get the trace right, and it is very useful. Just give yourself time to know exactly what each move is, and why it is known to work. Read Sysudoku Traces as necessary.

The second trace then, is for a near monster, World’s Hardest 200.

Here is the line marked grid, with fill strings. If you can solve it, tell me how you got it started. I’m sure sysudokie readers will be interested.

Next week, the World’s Hardest review continues with 200.

Posted in Advanced Solving, Expert Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The World’s Most Over-Titled Sudoku Book


This post starts the review of World’s Hardest Sudoku Book, tracing Very Hard 25, the only one rated a 1.00. The review will cover the highest rated 10, taking the rating down to 0.90. The lowest of the 200 is 0.76. Again, I know nothing about the rating, or the publisher, Sudokubooks. There’s no background information, or even a copyright notice, in the book.

Another reason to be prepared for surprises is that Strmckr, a Sudoku forum contributing expert, and an interested reader, has already sent in his solution notes on Worlds 25 in a comment. I can’t publish, or even look at, his note until this post is out, but an exchange may appear later, if only as 4/24/18 comments.

As for the my sysudokie trace on 25, it started in a scary way with a bypass of the bypass, and no clues from box marking, either.

But the outlook brightened with line marking, and on the first candidate grid, with an XY-wing generating an Ec9 boxline removal. Also, it was good to spot a BARN, even though its locked 4’s claim  no victims.

 

 

 

Then on the X-panel, a 4-chain. In the XY-wing area.

 

 

 

 

The bv field in the East tower encourages coloring, and a 6-chain enables an expansion for a trap of 8r6c1.

 

 

A 6-chain/XY AIC almost nice loop and a second cluster don’t break the ice, but with the removal, . . .

 

 

. . . the 6 and 8-panel freeforms reveal single and compatible blue patterns.

 

 Blue quickly confirms orange, and the solution.

The heavy reliance on XY-chains, the X-panel, coloring and patterns (templates) is typical sysudokie. The Strmckr approach is probably different and sure to be interesting.

For next week, the next two review puzzles are rated 0.92.  One falls in the bypass and the other is a slippery monster.

 

 

 

You have a week to decide which is which, and to solve one in sysudokie basic. The basic traces of both puzzles will be posted next week.

 

Then we’ll continue on with the tougher, and perhaps, more on 25 solution paths.

 

 

Posted in Advanced Solving, Puzzle Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Strmckr’s Double Common ALS_XZ


This post translates an instructive example from “strmckr”, an expert forum contributor, and adds some observations about double common ALS_XZ.  Then Sudent comments on some Sudoku history that Strmckr included with his example.

In his comments on the April 10 post on a possible WXYZ vs. BARN settlement, Strmckr supplies a very helpful example of a double common ALS_XZ. Forum participants, through a long history of text communication, transmit the grids to each other in unformatted text.

Here is Strmckr’s example, more accessibly marked for Sysudoku readers.

Many ALS_XZ are BARNs, but is this double common one a “double barn”? No, this isn’t a “barn size 4” at all.

But it does work.  It’s a valid ALS_XZ, and also a BNS0 Robert Hanson’s Bent n-Set 0.  The 4-set remainders are disjoint, and every value is therefore locked. That itself guarantees the removals, including 8r3c8.

Strmckr was especially considerate to point out that his example is also a Sue de Coq, evaluated as we do in Sysudoku, with remainder ALS. The 3 or 6 not in SEc8 must come from 36r8c7, and the 7 or 8 not in SEc8 must come from 78r1c8.

But getting back to the double common ALS_XZ above, Strmckr states for us the fact that all values in both ALS become locked. That’s true of all ALS_XZ. He could add that with double commons, the uncommon values in each ALS are locked as well. Each ALS loses a common value and both are therefore individually locked in each uncommon value.

But that’s not all. The locked sets includes the double common values, but unlike the uncommon values, common values are locked across both ALS; not  within each ALS. That’s because we don’t know which ALS gets which common value, so a common value victim must see all common values in both ALS.

Thinking about this, I realize that I was overly restrictive in ALS Partnering, my lens prescription for spotting most ALS_XZ. Every member of a restricted common must see each other. That guarantees that when one of the ALS gets a common value, the other doesn’t. But the wink between common values in the two ALS can be an AIC. That can open the butterfly box for some amazing ALS_XZ. On the downside, it makes solver coding and comprehensive human spotting even harder.

My reply to Strmckr’s first comment asks his opinion on inference chains as weak links in XYZ. We missed out on that, because he took it as question on ALS nodes in AIC, which are covered in Sysudoku.  His statement that “xyz-wings are always constructed as a barn” prompted the question.  Apparently, Strmckr and the forum remain unaware of Sysudoku irregular XYZ-wings, and irregular victims of toxic sets.

Or perhaps, it’s another instance of Sudoku coders avoiding the weak linking AIC, a.k.a. forcing chain, as a subject of discussion. It’s burdensome to program them for a solver. Line and column “seeing” does encompass a simpler and more easily coded world.

Strmckr’s comment claims agreement with the subject post, but actually he disagrees. There are two disagreements in his statement introducing the double common ALS_XS rule:

“ALS-xz double linked rule does apply to wxyz-wings, aka ‘barn size 4’ “.

Strmckr does not explain, or give any reference to explain, how the ALS-XZ double common rule applies to the WXYZ wing that is not also an ALS-XZ.  And the statement ends by describing BARN 4 as a commonly agreed synonym for WXYZ-wing. It certainly is not that .

Strmckr believed he was rightfully extending the WXYZ in his original BARN post.  But actually his “single bent value” BARN is equivalent to Bob Hanson’s Bent 4-set 1, leaving no doubt that Strmckr was inadvertently mislabeing Hanson’s BNS1 as a particular form of WXYZ.

The BARN and the BNS1 are two means of spotting the same thing. If a single value is bent, then the bent area remainders share a single value, and vice-versa.

In his comment, Strmckr takes credit for dismembering the 4-candidate hinge of the WXYZ.  That abandons the primary feature that characterized the wings. The forum should not have agreed so readily.

Strmckr comments that his WXYZ modifications were for “opening up its very narrow search window”. The very narrow search window is due to the increasing size of the toxic set with increasing wings, aggravated by an unnecessary limiting of weak links to house membership. “Seeing” the entire toxic set gets harder very rapidly.

But this is a logical consequence of the XY, XYZ, WXYZ, . . . definitions, and there is no advantage gained by compromising the WXYZ identity to relieve it.

Programmers have a better way to extend and maintain interest in higher wings. It’s AIC weak links.  Humans don’t find them all, but they do have fun with them.  Have you seen what they do for the XYZ?

Next post starts a new review, with a twist. The book is inaccurately titled “World’s Hardest Sudoku Book” from Sudokubooks, the unidentified publisher who is, by my guess, Moito, Rebecca Bean, and A.D. Ardson as well. The review puzzles are the hardest 10 by the rating assigned by Sudoku books, which is the same format as the others just listed, but not explained by any of them.

Your homework is the only 1.00 rated, #25. The twist is to use the review to decide where the ALS Partnering and APE Type 2 should be placed in the Sysudoku order of battle, right after unique rectangles, or just before AIC hinges. I’ll try for easy ones in both places, and after reviewing checkpoints, you’re invited to find some I missed.

Posted in Advanced Solving, Expert Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

An ALS Toxic Set Update


This post reviews Sysudoku history on the problem of spotting ALS toxic sets, and presents the updated  recommendation in the ALS Toxic Set page just completed for the Guide.  This spotting process, to be referred to here as ALS partnering, will be applied in future reviews, and updates

In sysudokie speak, a restricted set of like valued candidates guaranteed to contain a true candidate, a solution placement, is a toxic set.  “Toxic”, because any outside candidate seeing all members of the set is removed.

In a pair of ALS sharing a restricted common value, the like valued candidates of a different value in both ALS are a toxic set. The expert community uses the term ALS_XZ for this toxic set, understandably because almost all of the ALS toxic sets actually spotted by human solvers are ALS partnered with bi-value cells.  The XZ is a reference to the bv wing of XYZ or WXYZ wings.

The logic of the ALS toxic set, that one of the ALS loses the common value, and becomes locked, is best explained in those general terms.  On the other hand, Sysudoku has struggled with the obvious fact that the complexity of detecting a general ALS toxic set is too much for human solvers to undertake, especially those with the knowledge that methods easily spotted with template aids, like XY chains, fish and coloring, come next.

On my first encounter in July 2012, the Sysudoku remedy was to graphically display all ALS, then comparing all promising pairs. By October 2015,  I was ready to admit defeat, with a compromise, updating the 2012 post to generate one ALS at a time, looking forward in the sequence for promising partners. As an algorithm that saves half the ALS vs. ALS comparisons. Also it means that only the most promising, as a partner of a given ALS, are marked on the grid for testing.

It didn’t work. Over the intervening 2 ½ years and 150 posts, I have found very few ALS toxic set eliminations. My talented friend Gordan Fick, on the other hand, has spotted many for me.  My problem is, being neither a computer or Gordon Fick, I need an explicit signpost procedure, something I can recognize, that leads me to the crucial test, and will lead other ordinaries to find enough ALS_XZ to inspire them.

So now Sysudoku takes a third swing, an ALS_XZ spotting technique, is available in the Guide. I’m just hoping to get on base with ALS Partnering.

This is applying the construction vs. search principle to ALS toxic set.  Rather than looking for two ALS that fit together in the right way, look for possible first ALS components. With each one, you are now engaged in one or more guided constructions that will arrive at an ALS_XZ if it exists.

This prescription was tested with the blog cases, all of which it covers. Then to test evaluate the scanning effort and spotting improvement, the selected review puzzles from Castillo’s Only Extreme Sudoku were scanned immediately after line marking. This confirmed that ALS partnering is a large effort.

As to results, In Only Extreme 218, a regular 671-wing,

 

is duplicated by an ALS_XZ.

 

 

A more significant result occurs in Only Extreme 347. The 6’s are locked in the 3 value BARN, but there are no victims.  Also, this is not a BNS1, the remainder values being 569 and 569. But it’s undeniable that the victim 5 is looking at all 5’s in the two ALS.

Missing this removal in the review is significant as well. It enables a Sue de Coq and avoids a coloring trial.

Although ALS partnering does provide a clearly marked trail to follow, it still takes considerable time per productive ALS_XZ. In the Sysudoku order of battle, it is placed with other bv scan methods, to be  completed  prior to template constructing methods. That avoids the appearance of unnecessary scaffold construction. Aside from that consideration, ALS partnering might be better positioned after coloring.  The time it takes might be better spent on a puzzle actually requiring it.

Next week, a sysudokie version of the case study puzzle in Strmckr’s comment on the April 10 post, and some insights it brings. To bring up comments on a past post, click Comments at the bottom.  Also in the next post, a little more on the WXYZ, and some accounting for our honest differences.

Posted in Advanced Solving | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment