The weekly Assassins are posted at 3 pm Thursday afternoon here
on the west coast of Canada, so I am usually the first one to concede
defeat
My solving path would probably have been a bit shorter if I'd seen 4 outies on C9 = 11 = {1235} earlier. I suppose I could have then put it in earlier but I didn't because it wasn't something that I thought I ought to have seen earlier. Anyway it was getting late and I didn't want to have to restart and check all the later moves. Also I wanted to get my walkthrough posted on Thursday evening (well actually it wasn't, it was after midnight).Afmob wrote:I think the problem with this assassin was not to solve it but to make the solving path not too long so I tried to keep it as small as possible.

Thanks for raising this question. Don't know whether this is the answer you're looking for, but here's my response:gary w wrote:Just a question though,Mike.Step 22 was great but was it a hypothetical?
I hope this has answered your question and at least been partially comprehensible!Select text in box (e.g., by triple-clicking it) to see what I wrote:Possibly, but arguably no more so than a complex XY-Loop, aka. complex Nice Loop. If there were only 2 places (i.e., cells or cell groups) for the 1 in N7, with 2 inference chains emanating from the starting cell (r8c9), then there would have been a grouped strong link between the 2 cell groups in N7, allowing the logic to be re-expressed as a loop. The loop would have been a discontinuous complex Nice Loop, with two strong links at the discontinuity (r8c9), and would have shown that "if r8c9 is not 3, then it must be 3" (with the conclusion r8c9 = 3).
In this case (step 22 of my A72V2 WT), there are however three places for the 1 in N7, and three chains emanating from r8c9 instead of two, as in the theoretical example above. As such, it is no longer possible to create a simple loop. However, the chains themselves are bona fide bidirectional inference chains, just as in the former case. So it's arguably just an extension of the 2-way (loop) scenario to the 3-way case.
Code: Select all
.-----------.-----------------------------------.-----------.-----------------------------------.-----------.
| 67 | 123589 123589 35679 | 24 | 12345789 1234579 1234579 | 58 |
| :-----------.-----------------------: :-----------------------.-----------: |
| 67 | 123458 | 12345 12345 | 79 | 123458 12345 | 23458 | 69 |
:-----------: '-----------. :-----------: .-----------' :-----------:
| 123 | 1234589 1234589 | 123456 | 15 | 123456789 | 23456789 23456789 | 123456789 |
| '-----------. '-----------: :-----------' .-----------' |
| 1234 56 | 12345679 12345679 | 15 | 2345679 23456789 | 234567 123456789 |
:-----------------------'-----------------------: :-----------------------'-----------------------:
| 1234 12345679 12345679 12345679 | 8 | 12345679 12345679 12345679 12345679 |
:-----------------------.-----------------------: :-----------------------.-----------------------:
| 248 79 | 123456789 12345679 | 36 | 2345679 2345679 | 234567 1234567 |
| .-----------' .-----------: :-----------. '-----------. |
| 248 | 1234678 1234678 | 123456789 | 36 | 123457 | 23456789 23456789 | 1234567 |
:-----------: .-----------' :-----------: '-----------. :-----------:
| 9 | 1234678 | 1234678 12345678 | 24 | 1234567 1234567 | 2345678 | 13 |
| :-----------'-----------------------: :-----------------------'-----------: |
| 5 | 12348 12348 12348 | 79 | 13679 13679 13679 | 24 |
'-----------'-----------------------------------'-----------'-----------------------------------'-----------'From the same position, JSudoku required (with a bit of help from me) the following 24 (!) lower-level moves to crack the puzzle:mhparker (in WT above) wrote:22. no 1 in r8c9. Here's how.
22a. 1 in r8c9 -> no 1 in r8c3
22b. 1 in r8c9 -> no 1 in r6c9 -> 1 in r6c34 -> no 1 in r7c23+r8c2
22c. 1 in r8c9 -> 4 in r9c9 -> 13(3)n78 = {238} -> no 1 in r9c23
22d. but this leaves nowhere to place the 1 in n7
22e. -> no 1 in r8c9
Note that this is after a lot of analysis and simplification by me, with step 45 coming completely from me to shorten the solving path, otherwise JSudoku would have taken even longer to crack it! The fact that JSudoku didn't see step 45 is due to a known deficiency in innie/outie difference handling that I've already mentioned on this forum. Believe it or not, I've cut out the non-essential steps! I also took step 30 a bit further than JSudoku took it (where JSudoku for some reason failed to show that r7c5 cannot be a 3).JSudoku (after heavy optimization and help from me, esp. with final step) wrote:22. 18(3)n78 = {189/279/369/378/459/468/567}
22a. 9 only in r7c4
22b. -> no 1,2 in r7c4
22c. r78c4 cannot contain both of {79} due to r9c5
22d. -> no 2 in r8c3
23. 2 in r9 locked in 13(3)n78 or 5(2)n9
23a. if 13(3)n78 contains a 2, it must also contain a 3 ({238})
23b. if 5(2)n9 contains a 2, it must also contain a 3 ([32])
23c. -> 3 locked in r9c234 or r8c9
23d. -> no 3 in r9c78
24. 4 in r9 locked in 13(3)n78 or 5(2)n9
24a. if 13(3)n78 contains a 4, it must also contain a 1 ({148})
24b. if 5(2)n9 contains a 4, it must also contain a 1 ([14])
24c. -> 1 locked in r9c234 or r8c9
24d. -> no 1 in r9c78
25. Naked triple on {679} in r9 at r9c578 -> no 6,7,9 in r9c6
26. 6 in r9 locked in n9 -> not elsewhere in n9
27. Grouped XY-Chain eliminates 3 from r7c4. Here's how.
27a. Either r9c6 = 3, or...
27b. ...r9c6 <> 3 => r9c6 = 1 (strong link, bivalue cell)
27c. -> r9c78 <> {7..} (weak link, combinations 16(3))
27d. => r9c5 = 7 (strong link, r9)
27e. -> r9c5 <> 9 (weak link, r9c5)
27f. => r7c4 = 9 (strong link, n8)
27g. Either way, no 3 in r7c4
28. I/O difference n8: r7c5 + r9c46 = r8c37 + 6
28a. no 1,3 in r9c4. Here's how.
28b. min. r8c37 = 3 -> min. r7c5 + r9c46 = 9
28c. if r9c4 = 1/3, then r7c5 + r9c46 would be forced to {136} = 10
28d. -> r8c37 would have to sum to 4
28e. but this is impossible, since {13} in r8c37 blocked by r8c9
28f. -> no 1,3 in r9c4
29. (from steps 23c and 24c) {13} now locked in r9c23 or r8c9
29a. -> no 1,3 in r8c23
30. no 3 in r7c5. Here's how.
30a. min. r8c37 now 5 ([41])
30b. -> (from step 28) min. r7c5 + r9c46 = 11
30c. -> only possible permutation for r7c5 + r9c46 with a 3 in r7c5 is [381] = 12
30d. -> r8c37 = 6 = [42] (only possible permutation)
30e. but [42] for r8c37 is blocked by r8c5
30f. -> no 3 in r7c5
31. r67c5 = [36]
32. 10(3)n69 = {127/136/145/235} = {(1/3)..}
32a. {13} only available in c9
32b. -> 10(3)n69 and r8c9 form killer pair on {13} -> no 1,3 elsewhere in c9
33. 3 in c9 locked in n9 -> not elsewhere in n9
34. no 2 in r9c4. Here's how.
34a. I/O diff. n8: r9c46 = r8c37
34b. only possible permutation with 2 in r9c4 is r8c37+r9c46 = [4123]
34c. but this is blocked by r8c5
34d. -> no 2 in r9c4
35. CPE: r8c7 sees all 2's in n8 -> no 2 in r8c7
36. 10(3)n89 cannot have both of {27} within n8 due to 11(2)n8
36a. -> no 7 in r78c6
36b. 10(3)n89 = {127/145/235} = {(2/4)..}
37. 10(3)n89 (step 36b) and r8c5 form killer pair on {24}
37a. -> no 2,4 in r8c4
38. r78c4 and r9c5 form hidden killer pair on {79} within n8
38a. -> r78c4 = {(7/9)..}
38b. -> {468} combo blocked for 18(3)n78 = {189/369/378/459/567}
38c. -> possible permuations for 18(3)n78 = [981/963/783/945/567/765]
38d. -> r7c4 = {579}(no 4,8), r8c3 = {468}(no 7), r8c4 = {1357}(no 8)
39. Hidden single in c4 at r9c4 = 8
40. CPE: r8c7 sees all 4's in n8 -> no 4 in r8c7
41. I/O diff. n8: r8c37 = r9c6 + 8 = 9 or 11
41a. -> r8c37+r9c6 = [451/653/811]
(Note: [473] blocked by 13(3)n78)
41b. -> no 7 in r8c7
42. 7 now unavailable for 10(3)n89 (step 36b) = {145/235}
42a. 5 locked -> no 5 in r8c4
42b. -> no 4 in r8c3 (step 38c)
43. 2 in n8 locked in 10(3)n89 or split 14(3) at r8c159 (i.e., r9 outies)
43a. if 10(3)n89 contains a 2, it must also contain a 3 ({23}[5])
43b. if r8c159 contains a 2, it must also contain a 3 ([923])
43c. -> 3 locked in r78c6 or r8c9
43d. -> no 3 in r8c4
44. (from step 38c) 18(3)n78 = [981/567] (only remaining permutations)
44a. -> no 7 in r7c4
45. I/O diff. n8: r78c4 + r9c6 = r8c7 + 10 = 11 or 15
45a. -> r78c4 + r9c6 = [573] (only possible permutation)
45b. -> r8c7 = 5, r8c3 = 6 (18(3) cage sum)