Sudoku Players' Forum (clone)

Arse.

... sigh ...

Karyobin wrote:Maybe I should go to a crossword website and harass them?

This sounds like fun! Can I come with you?

I think everyone's right! Hurrah! Specifically, I prefer regular sudokus to Killers(though I do like them as well), but as a Maths student myself I agree with what Karyobin has to say on the subject.

I think the killers are fun, but not quite as challenging once you get used to the patterns involved - or maybe we've just not seen enough of the more difficult killers as yet. The first time you hit a certain type of puzzle it will usually take a little longer to master, but my suspicion (probably totally wrong !) is that killers will not prove to be so for too long - probably more in the way of GBH when your brain misses a trick. I'll have to get the book (is it out yet ?) to check out whether I'm correct or not. I hadn't spotted the regular Killer from last Weds in addition to the main 5 until today. Having got the hang of the main 5, I found the first one only took 3-4 mins to complete - just like an easy/mild regular Sudoku. I do agree it's also fun though to have some maths (albeit fairly simple) involved.

Maybe an interesting way to go would be a Killer Samurai ?

Paul

PS: And I'm an alleged mathematician too.

Karyobin wrote:What is the source of this underlying aversion to using maths recreationally? Why does one frequently hear uttered such absurdities as "Don't ask me about maths, I'm terrible at it!" Have you ever heard anyone say that about their English skills? Damn right you haven't, because there seems to be a certain degree of shame attached to the latter, whereas the former is trooped out at every opportunity, almost as a talisman affirming 'normality'.

Though I agree with *everything* in this post -- you took *these* words right out of my mouth. People actually *brag* that they're bad at mathematics -- as if others will think they're nerds and take their lunch money. Not that the Killers require mathematics really, just a little arithmetic. It's not like we're trying to get the public to do a little recreational calculus ...

Karyobin wrote:Are we destined always to sit quietly on the wings, accepting our lot as perceived freaks whilst the rest of the 'normals' giggle about and denigrate our mindsets?

As far as I can tell, yes.

Karyobin wrote:Maybe I should go to a crossword website and harass them?

The 'normals' think the word game people are freaks as well -- at least those who do the diagramless challengers. The general public typically dismiss serious Scrabble and Chess players as weirdos as well. But they want they're cake as well -- which is why, when the puzzles were too difficulty in the LA Times, readers wrote in and complained -- not that they weren't smart enough to solve them, but that they were too difficult to be solved at all. The Times now prints much easier puzzles while continuing to label them as "Diabolical". It seems that this may also be happening at the UK Times, as Wayne has noted himself that recent puzzles labeled "Fiendish" were rated "medium" instead of "hard" by his software.

Karyobin wrote:P.S. Sorry, can't stand Cross-sum types, very little logic in my experience and far too much T & E.

I've always hated them too -- I'm not sure why. I think it may be that I like the feel of a puzzle that moves quickly at points, then reaches an impasse, then the dam bursts. Cross-sums don't seem to solve this way, more a constant plodding. On the other hand, I think I'll give them another chance using the same candidates-in-each-cell solving methods we use for the harder Sudokus. My wife is a whiz at them -- she says no T&E is required. (She's one of those weirdos that do diagrammless challenger crosswords -- while carrying on a conversation.)

Karyobin wrote:P.P.P.S. Why does 'seeing' have two 'e's' and 'being' doesn't?

What do the 2nd and 3rd 'P's stand for in "P.P.P.S."?

How does one correctly write: "There are three ways to spell 'to'."?

tso wrote:I think I'll give them another chance using the same candidates-in-each-cell solving methods we use for the harder Sudokus.

I tried that a while back. It didn't seem to help much at all, though I may have been misapplying them. Good luck by all means, let me know how it goes.

tso wrote:What do the 2nd and 3rd 'P's stand for in "P.P.P.S."?

As far as I'm aware, every 'P' always stands for 'Post'.

tso wrote:How does one correctly write: "There are three ways to spell 'to'."?

Another cracking question! My solution would be to go into phonetic notation, y'know, schwa's and the like. So you'd probably have to write 'to' as 'tu:', or something.

Goodness, we really push back the boundaries, don't we?

'There are 3 ways to spell 2'

signed not-very-mathematical-type

And did you know that there are 3 types of mathematician ?

Those that can count, and those that can't.

Paul

Reminds me of the old joke, "There are 10 types of people in the world - those who understand binary and those who don't" ... though I often wondered just who the joke was on...

The Druid

The Druid wrote:Reminds me of the old joke, "There are 10 types of people in the world - those who understand binary and those who don't" ... though I often wondered just who the joke was on...

The Druid

that is actually the best joke i heard all year
and what is better is that i have told it to 7 people and none of them understand it
he he he

Bit of a visual joke though really, innit?

My favourite is..."I hope I die in my sleep like my grandfather, rather than screaming in terror like his passengers."

tso wrote:I think I'll give them another chance using the same candidates-in-each-cell solving methods we use for the harder Sudokus. My wife is a whiz at them -- she says no T&E is required. (She's one of those weirdos that do diagrammless challenger crosswords -- while carrying on a conversation.)

I've had the chance today to have a serious go at all the ones The Times has published so far. I had previously worried about too much T&E being required. But I've managed to solve all the ones to date without T&E. (I should note that I've been using angusj's SS to record options and possibilities). It seems to me now that solving them is about one part cross-sums and two parts standard (and simple) sudoku techniques. But they take some time. Whereas I can knock off an angusj 'extreme' in 4-6 minutes, at the moment it's taking me 30 minutes for a moderate killer. But I don't yet have all the combinations internalised. I hope I'll be able to improve technique and speed as more are published. For now, I think they're a welcome and challenging alternative (and probably rather more difficult to program solvers for).

30 minutes to do a moderate? Good to see that my 30 minutes to do Monday's Killer is reasonable... Mind you, I was trying to play a board game online at the same time...

Anyone else feel the same as I do on Killers ? I don't think they'll stay around as a challenge for too long as they simply seem to have too many clues inherrent in them with all the pairs and triples and potential candidates for each cell. I've not looked at the theory behind them - wouldn't really know where to start in terms of comparing difficulty with regular Sudokus - but I reckon once you get the hang of the techniques involved they'll appear quite straightforward. The techniques required so far haven't been very complex though. Certainly Monday's (~5 mins) and today's (~6 mins) weren't as challenging as proper difficult/fiendish puzzles, but are a bit of fun as a change from the usual puzzles. I missed the Times yesterday, so can't comment on that until it's available online. I'd be interesting in seeing some more "deadly" varietals to see whether my suspicions are right or not. I had a brief search online for the book of Killers, but couldn't spot it anywhere as yet. Also I'd be interested to see whether it's possible to create a Killer puzzle that requires some of the fiendish techniques to solve it.

Paul