jducoeur: (Default)
[personal profile] jducoeur
Sudoku right before bed == bad idea. Induces the most terrible Tetris Dreams...

(no subject)

Date: 2005-11-06 07:55 pm (UTC)
siderea: (Default)
From: [personal profile] siderea
Not for me -- I do a sudoku or two every night right before bed as part of my relaxing bedtime ritual!

(no subject)

Date: 2005-11-06 10:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] herooftheage.livejournal.com
I found a trick that makes Sudoku dead easy, and I wanted to check if it was standard: large individual boxes, so you can put the possibilities in small print, and cross them out as they get eliminated. It seems to make it easy enough that even the interesting ones that require a guess (handwaving there, strictly, they require you look ahead for two separate trees pretty deeply before making a decision) are simple, because the possibilities constrain your guesses pretty straightforwardly.

(no subject)

Date: 2005-11-06 10:44 pm (UTC)
siderea: (Default)
From: [personal profile] siderea
It is, in fact, so standard that most online sudoku sites' software allows it. OK, they don't make the boxes any bigger, but they use a wee tiny font for the "possibilites" as they're called. :)

I've come to the conclusion that using possibilities makes the game too easy, so I no longer use them. (Though they were good while I was still learning.) I also don't believe in guessing.

I recommend http://sudoku.com.au/ for daily doeses. Their harder two levels are usually actually worth working on.

(no subject)

Date: 2005-11-07 02:41 pm (UTC)
mikekn: (Default)
From: [personal profile] mikekn
I've been using http://www.websudoku.com/ for my on-line Sudoku fix. They also allow multiple numbers to be put in each box.

(no subject)

Date: 2005-11-06 11:50 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] herooftheage.livejournal.com
You might not believe in guessing, but don't puzzles sometime require them? I.E. you're down to a set of target possibilities for some cells, and there's no more information to be gotten, and you have to just start traversing the tree to eliminate further possibilities.

(no subject)

Date: 2005-11-06 11:57 pm (UTC)
siderea: (Default)
From: [personal profile] siderea
See, I'm not sure. Lately I've been finding that if I need to go more than about 4 steps down the tree, it's been because I missed something more obvious. I don't know that that is always necessarily true, from a strict logical standpoint, but I've been running with that presumption.

Now that I think about it, using possibility notation seems to encourage tree-diving. Without it, it's very hard to see very deep levels of consequences (or at least I find it so) so working without them forces one to stay closer to the trunk. And, so far, it's been working for me: I haven't been defeated by any boards. When I get stuck, I stop the timer and go off for a break, and usually shortly after I return I see something terminally obvious and simple.

Guessing

Date: 2005-11-07 01:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] metageek.livejournal.com
I'm pretty sure I've read that no puzzle is supposed to require guessing. I haven't yet found one I couldn't do without it. (Mind you, there have been some I didn't finish, but that was because I made some unknown mistake and didn't feel like starting over.)

Profile

jducoeur: (Default)
jducoeur

June 2025

S M T W T F S
12 34567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags