| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
daj95376
Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Posts: 3854
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 8:47 pm Post subject: UR+SL: Mike Barker's UR+2B/1SL |
 |
|
I'm only going to post one pattern for each thread in this forum. Should I get to the point of creating a thread in the Solving Techniques forum, then I'll move each head post from the threads here into messages in a single thread there.
===== ===== ===== ===== Mike Barker's UR+2B/1SL
| Code: | Bivalues in [c1] and one SL in [r5]
+--------------+
| . . . |
| 12 . 1X-2 |
| . . . |
+--------------+
| . . . |
| 12 . 12Y |< SL on <1>
| . . . |
+--------------+
2x SL variant (equivalent to UR Type 4)
+--------------+
| . . . |
| 12 . 1X-2 |< SL on <1>
| . . . |
+--------------+
| . . . |
| 12 . 1Y-2 |< SL on <1>
| . . . |
+--------------+
|
Puzzle from Mike Barker's "zoo" collection:
| Code: | ..3.4.8.74...21.3..1.....4..381.........7...8.4...5..29..........73........65.4..
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| 26 269 3 | 5 4 69 | 8 1 7 |
| 4 7 569 | 8 2 1 | 569 3 569 |
| 8 1 569 | 7 3 69 | 2 4 569 |
|--------------------+--------------------+--------------------|
| 57 3 8 | 1 6 2 | 579 579 4 |
| 256 2569 269 | 4 7 3 | 1 56 8 |
| 167 4 16 | 9 8 5 | 3 67 2 |
|--------------------+--------------------+--------------------|
| 9 568 4 | 2 1 *78 | 567 *78+5 3 |
| 1256 2568 7 | 3 9 4 | 56 258 156 |
| 3 28 12 | 6 5 *78 | 4 *78+29 19 |< SL on <7>
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
# 57 eliminations remain
r79c68 <78> UR via s-link <> 8 r7c8
|
I'm adding this pattern to this thread because of its similarity to the 2x variant above ... and because of ronk's comment. When an X-Wing exists in the UR cells, then there's no "essential difference" from applying the first pattern 2x times, or the following pattern once.
===== ===== ===== ===== Mike Barker's UR+2X/1SL
| Code: | Bivalues in [c1] and one SL in [c3] (aka UR Type 4)
+--------------+
| . . . |
| 12 . 1X-2 |
| . . . |
+--------------+
| . . . |
| 12 . 1Y-2 |
| . . . |
+--------------+
^ SL on <1>
|
Since examples of UR Type 4 abound, I'm not going to include an example puzzle.
Last edited by daj95376 on Tue Nov 01, 2011 5:17 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ronk
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 398
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 9:40 pm Post subject: Re: UR+SL: Mike Barker's UR+2B/1SL |
|
|
| daj95376 wrote: | | Code: |
2x SL variant (aka UR Type 4)
+--------------+
| . . . |
| 12 . 1X-2 |< SL on <1>
| . . . |
+--------------+
| . . . |
| 12 . 1Y-2 |< SL on <1>
| . . . |
+--------------+
|
|
A Type 4 would have a single SL on <1> in column 3. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daj95376
Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Posts: 3854
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 11:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ron,
I've updated the head post and hope that I've addressed your point/concerns. My intent was to show that 2x applications of a particular pattern would lead to eliminations equivalent to a known UR Type. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ronk
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 398
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2011 12:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| daj95376 wrote: | | My intent was to show that 2x applications of a particular pattern would lead to eliminations equivalent to a known UR Type. |
But that's quite different than "aka". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daj95376
Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Posts: 3854
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2011 5:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ronk wrote: | | But that's quite different than "aka". |
Accepted. Post updated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
