| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Clement
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 1113
Location: Dar es Salaam Tanzania
|
 Posted: Sun May 19, 2013 10:47 pm Post subject: May 20 VH |
 |
|
| Code: |
+--------------+----------+-------------+
| 25 59 8 | 69 4 1 | 7 3 26 |
| 4 6 3 | 8 2 7 | 9 5 1 |
| 127 179 17 | 5 3 69 | *48 26 *48 |
+--------------+----------+-------------+
| 9 13 16 | 4 5 36 | 2 8 7 |
| 78 378 5 | 2 1 38 | 6 4 9 |
| 68 2 4 | 69 7 689 | 5 1 3 |
+--------------+----------+-------------+
| 1678 178 167 | 3 9 5 | *48 267 *2468 |
| 3 58 2 | 7 6 4 | 1 9 58 |
| 567 4 9 | 1 8 2 | 3 67 56 |
+--------------+----------+-------------+
|
Type 1 UR 48 in Grid r37c79; r7c9<>48 solves it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
roaa
Joined: 18 Apr 2009
Posts: 112
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Mon May 20, 2013 8:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I used an xy-wing (256) forcing r9c1 <> 5 giving r8c2 = 8 which solves it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marty R.
Joined: 12 Feb 2006
Posts: 5770
Location: Rochester, NY, USA
|
| Posted: Mon May 20, 2013 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| roaa wrote: | | I used an xy-wing (256) forcing r9c1 <> 5 giving r8c2 = 8 which solves it. |
I used the same move, but r8c2=5, not 8, since it's the only 5 left after the XY-Wing elimination. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RobertRattley
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 118
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Tue May 21, 2013 2:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
I, who take inordinate pleasure in secondary matters, was delighted to find that no fewer than 7 "sole candidate"s seemed to be necessary during the preliminaries (and more than 7 were available).
And, just to be slightly different: the xy-wing elimination settles the 5 in row 9 and that solves it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
