![]() I believe it is the case that it is case that there is only one order which will undo the puzzle, but what would determine that ? Of course by analogy, a combination lock has only one order that will unlock it, even if it opens which just 3 or 4 numbers being necessary. Is it so for the latest one, or some of the earlier ones created by this same Finish mathematician, that there is only one order of filled in squares that will solve it ? I suppose its possible that this could be the case but don't know how one would know. I am very curious about the new sort of super difficult Sudoku puzzles. (?).Ĭan your solution counter limitation be increased from the current "over 500" to say "over 10368"?.It will benefit me,- as a count of one- as an improved Sudoku study aid site. ![]() The solution counter shows a number for possible solutions - taking strategy elimination steps with no other input whatever sometimes results in " Oops" situations.(?). On inspection the count should be "2" in my opinion. Possibilities possibilities possibilities In pattern development exercises solution counts of "13" and less arose but "strategies" managed to find a solution.Ī solution count '3" with no strategy solution arose in a result set out below: NOT "Arto Inkala" directly related but info could help indirectly in this and other situations: "Block fitting" instead of single clue fitting may be too much of a broad side solution attack for your strategy considerations.(?). The result of this particular 45 clue input is four possible solutions for the row of middle blocks.A perfect core would of course force the completion of the 36 outstanding clues. Block "5" and four corner blocks solution output serve as a 45 clue input. With the aid of solution count "0" it took 3 prompts to solve the puzzle.No satisfaction or euphoria experienced doing this.The main aim was to quick core test the solution for a perfect fit. Random Enthusiast (26/9/15) - By now you may already know that clue "5"-block "8" in the original puzzle has been transposed in your two solutions. My awareness of "Arto Inkala" occurred a few hours ago. Escargot with 80 out of a possble 1596 pairs of cells gives a 5.0% 'trivialization' rate and is fourthĪll the remaining contenders I've tested - my stock of unsolvables and extremes - contain between 5% and 30% of pairs.Arto Inkala's puzzle with 79 out of a possible 1770 pairs of cells giving a 4.5% 'trivialization' rate.David Filmer is the hands down winner with these two puzzles: Now, where does Arto Inkala's puzzle fit in in the pantheon of the truly hard? Well, currently third place. I have yet to find a level-3 puzzle but it will be a truly awesome puzzle if found. ![]() ![]() Unlike level-1 puzzles where we test 50 to 55 cells the number of combinations of 2 cells is quite high, roughly 1300 to 2100 so it is likely that some or many will trivialize the puzzle. For these level-2 puzzles two cells will normally do the job. The ratio of insertions that trivialise a puzzle to those that do not is the score.īut there will be some very hard puzzles where no single insertion makes the puzzle easy. Trivial is defined as using Singles, Pairs, Triples, Quads and Intersection Removal, the basic strategies. Obviously one counts the insertions separately, not several in one go. One counts the number of unsolved cells that - if magically filled - render the remaining puzzle trivial. The method is simple like all good ideas. I've been looking at a new idea for measuring the difficulty of very hard puzzles - ones that can't use the standard scoring because they don't complete. So there is plenty of room for more thought and ideas, which is the attraction of Sudoku - it's very deep. Most of the advanced strategies and all the chaining ones require bi-value (2 in one cell) or bi-location (2 in one unit) to get anywhere. If you look at my solver when it comes to 'Run out of known strategies' you will see most cells contain 3 or more candidates. People have posted solutions which combine several strategies to get past bottlenecks and there are great ideas I'd love to include, time permitting. Currently, if I produce a large amount of random stock, about 0.01% will still be unsolvable, so it's possible to produce many of these "extremes". We don't have a logical method for solving ALL sudoku puzzles yet so there will be some that defy the pattern based methods used in this solver. But is this the hardest puzzle? See below. You can load Arto Inkala's puzzle from this link or pick it from the end of the example list. (for example The Daily Telegraph, The Sun, Metro et al). There's been some buzz in many news outlets this week about a new puzzle by Arto Inkala, a Finnish mathematician. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |