Game 632777

[strmckr]

this is proably the easiest "very hard rated puzzle" i have ever come across.

in my opion the plausable 44 second time is boarderline humanly improbably on a very hard grid.

however on insepection of said grid, it might actually be do able as this puzzle clearly does not meet the rating it has.

.6....3....347.5.875..2..4....147.2..8469371..7.285....1..6..343.2.196....6....8.

32 Naked singles {which means they are the last digit in a cell}

typically these are much harder for the average person to spot but not on this grid.

most are found in locations with only 2 possiblies left in eihter the row/box or column, but they visibily see one of the options, this cascades very rapidly exposing mutiple such places allowing for a easy solution.

once u find all the naked singles u are left with 13 cells unsolved. 12 of which have only 2 canadites and by counting digits on hand in those cell a "bug" can be found d solving to solve the finall Cell R6C1 = 9 and chain the rest of the 12 cells.

alternatice methods still work x-cycls or simple coloring also cracks the puzzle easier then the "bug"

[7B53]

actually, i'll be more surprise if the solved time was on a hard rather than a vh.

its part of the reasons why most players can solved a vh quicker than a hard rated puzzle.
generally , theres more numbers given on the vh. then..theres more initial singles u can find.
difference is ,it will come to a point where u some sore of strategies to make the next logical move.
and yes, to gain speed, some players would choose to guess on a bivalve cell.
hey, with the chances 50/50 , theres got to be times when ur guesses are right !
there, u will have a very impressive solved-time. isn't it ?
but wait a minute, isn't this is pure luck ! and not skill ?!
isn't this is suppose to be a game of logic in the first place ?
it is every players' preference of how to approach this game.

cheers ! and hello to the old gangster here (pia,manny,craigg,etc,even to Ig)

[strmckr]

theres more numbers given on the vh.

not exactly true, some of the hardest puzzles known to date actually have in exessive 27 clues.

the arangment of the clues deteremins how difficult the logic nested with in the grid becomes.

the most intresting fact on this time comes from a self quote from the player that made the time.
for example we could check out my "random generated thread" for diffiuclt eary game puzzles from nested logic.

I find the same game as 632777..... is "Game631557" In 631557 , my time is 1'22" , I use "BUG" to solve this puzzle... Can find that two games are "only separated by two days".... No wonder I have a little impressed....

he solved the same puzzle 2 days befor hand - what is intresting with this is the notaion he has solved over 2.5k grids how did he rememeber that he solved this exact puzzle 2 days befor hand and solve it remeberng the sequence.

[irma]

Re: game 631557 (1:22) & 632777 (0:44)

Is the new record for the "very hard" game in question, and if so - on what grounds?

Given that the player

good at memory numbers

recorded a substantial difference in solving times of two identical games
played in the space of just two days does seem to leave room for doubt in the validity
of the new record resulting from the same twice-played game.

While the player can hardly be blamed for the outcome,
his omission to disclose & report this incident complicates the matter - it led to ambiguity,
which generally tends to undermine credibility.

[craigg12]

however on insepection of said grid, it might actually be do able as this puzzle clearly does not meet the rating it has.

I agree with storm. This grid requires less logic than most medium level grids as well as as many easy level. I played the grid and was well under 90 sec.

don3232 consistently plays at this level on numerous sites. It is not just here.

[irma]

Graigg12, I agree this was a reasonably easy grid.

However, this was never my concern.

The question for me is not whether don3232 could or could not play at this level,
but rather whether the record achieved on the second go at the same grid is FAIR as such
(especially by someone with a self-confessed great memory!).

Considering that this criterion is equally applicable to anyone in the said circumstance,
this matter is not about don3232, but rather about fair scoring rules of the game.

This is my view. Not necessarily shared by anyone else.


An observation: Interesting to note your reliance on strmckr's statement:

however on insepection of said grid, it might actually be do able as this puzzle clearly does not meet the rating it has.

in support of your own stand, while ignoring his later post.



Anyway, great to see you posting!

[craigg12]

I wasn't ignoring. I just disagree and noted the part I do agree on.
I do the same grid multiple times sometimes to see if I can improve. Even knowing a certain path is there will not help in all cases. It depends on your starting point in some grids. I seriously doubt don thought to self 'i've seen this grid before - I know where everything goes' and was able to reason it out in 40+ sec. He just chose a better path or had a better eye on round 2.
Also - I am certain all days are not good sudoku days. don was probably running a little better on round 2. Personally I feel don was playing well below his level with a time 1:30.
Thats all.

[irma]

I follow your line of reasoning and see your viewpoint. It has its merits. But, it dismisses out of hand:

a) the argument on unfairness of a system which allows identical games;

b) strmckr's legitimate concerns, including those in regard to the cheat-proof backed scoring system.

A scoring system that is not cheat-proofed is compromised; it rests on, and is dependent upon
the presupposed (unsubstantiated) honesty of each and every player. Consequently, its accuracy and reliability are undermined, its scoreboard dubious, and it's fraught with issues and implications.

It's odd to choose someone you disagree with as a reference.

... I feel don was playing well below his level with a time 1:30.

seems not to stand up to scrutiny.

[craigg12]

Really?
ok. sounds good. take care.

don - you suck.

[irma]

No need to be sarcastic.

From what I could see, only 25 out of 237 VH games (on the 10 page sample) were below 1:30 mark.

I leave it to your interpretation.

Don far from "sucks".

I am a supporter.

I support talent in general.

It does not mean I'll agree with a favourable statement just because it happens to be about someone I support.

Take care!