Friday, 20th April 2018
Puzzles Solved Yesterday: 129
Home | Register | Login | Current Puzzle | Archives | Leaderboard | Forum | Tutorial | FAQ
Forum Index
 
My method
Burko
Kwon-Tom Fan
Puzzles: 89
Posted - 2006.04.27 09:25:58
I don't know if I'm wired up wrong, but I find it 10 times easier if I fill all the lines in on the grid (time consuming I know). Then, I work it out in reverse and remove lines instead of adding them





Don't know if this is effective for anyone else???????????
drnull
Kwon-Tom Obsessive
Puzzles: 901
Best Total: 23m 25s
Posted - 2006.04.27 13:59:00
Ok, they say don't knock it till you tried it.

I did this for Monday's puzzle.  I will now knock it. 

What is the motivation here?  Aren't you still using all the basic rules?  I admit, there was a time or two that things were just "obvious" because of the way the lines were already there once I x'ed things off, but after working puzzles for a while, "blank" areas become obvious lines once you x things off.

How in the world did you find this easier, anyways?  Just wondering what motivated you to try it this way?
astrokath
Kwon-Tom Obsessive
Puzzles: 3093
Best Total: 13m 42s
Posted - 2006.04.27 14:26:30
I guess it's just what works best, visually, for you.

I find that I alternate between seeing unmarked spaces as either lines or crosses, depending on whether I'm currently ruling things out or in.  When I first started these puzzles, I usually just worked on looking for lines, and adding crosses only after a particular route had been closed off.  This is effectively the opposite - having all routes mentally crossed out/non-existent to start with, and gradually tracing the loop in.  But, I now work both ways, and look for crosses instead of just lines, and this seems to be the direction in which Burko seems to prefer to work.  There's nothing wrong with this; it's just the way he prefers to see things, but unless he can learn to interpret an unmarked grid as already fully connected, his current method is going to remain time consuming.

But I can certainly see where this would be helpful. As an unmarked grid is definitely more suggestive of no-loops rather than a fully joined-up grid, the reasoning for blocking all the lines in first seems sensible for his case.
drnull
Kwon-Tom Obsessive
Puzzles: 901
Best Total: 23m 25s
Posted - 2006.04.27 14:44:03
I guess my only problem with it is that you infer certain things based on where lines are, and where x's are.  Blank means something too - you don't know what it is.  With the entire puzzle filled in with lines or x's, you take away your ability infer as much information.  You can no longer trust the lines that you see as being real.  They've now adopted the additional meaning of "don't know".

I guess it's the difference between binary and ternary logic.

Unless you are mentally marking all your "inital" lines as unknown and then mentally changing them to "known" once you've visited them?

But yes, visualizing blanks as lines does help out.  I can't seem to extend it past the simple "these set of blank lines would cause a loop" type of argument, but I guess that just takes more experience.

And I don't intend to insult the OP's method.  I was just stating that I didn't find it effective.
Burko
Kwon-Tom Fan
Puzzles: 89
Posted - 2006.04.27 14:51:12
Ok folks, calm down! I don't think the world is going to blow up if I decide to do something a little different. It's a bit of fun and relaxation for me. I get my enjoyment from experimenting and tinkering with things, taking a different approach to the sad, boring "norm". I don't like rules and regulations, it's more satisfying doing something for yourself and doing it your own way. Few people are shepherds, the majority are sheep. lol
drnull
Kwon-Tom Obsessive
Puzzles: 901
Best Total: 23m 25s
Posted - 2006.04.27 15:16:57
It's not?  Wait a minute!!!!  This is important!!!



We're not upset about anything, just discussing your methods.  One of the really nice things about these puzzles are that there is no "right" way to come up with the solution.  As a matter of fact, I'd say that there's a really good chance that no two people on here solve them exactly the same way.  Sure, we may use the same rules, but we each see different things easier.
AmyR
Kwon-Tom Obsessive
Puzzles: 826
Best Total: 30m 18s
Posted - 2006.04.27 17:12:59
Ok, I tried this method.  It's kind of fun.  My problem was in keeping track of which lines I was sure of, and which were temporary.  I don't think it's faster for me, but it sure gave me a bit of a mental workout!
drnull
Kwon-Tom Obsessive
Puzzles: 901
Best Total: 23m 25s
Posted - 2006.04.27 17:21:17
Quote:
Originally Posted by amyr
Ok, I tried this method.  It's kind of fun.  My problem was in keeping track of which lines I was sure of, and which were temporary.  I don't think it's faster for me, but it sure gave me a bit of a mental workout!
Agreed.  My head hurt afterwards. 

I'm still waiting for somebody to explain some of the basics of the "colored background" method so I can try it out too.  Again, I probably won't like it (cause I'm used to doing it this way) but it would be fun to try.
astrokath
Kwon-Tom Obsessive
Puzzles: 3093
Best Total: 13m 42s
Posted - 2006.04.27 21:10:54
Quote:
Originally Posted by drnull


I'm still waiting for somebody to explain some of the basics of the "colored background" method so I can try it out too.  Again, I probably won't like it (cause I'm used to doing it this way) but it would be fun to try.

It does work, up to a point, so you can quickly see which parts of the puzzle are on one side of the line, and which on the other.  The problem comes when you have two, or three, or more separate pieces of "string", and you don't know which side is interior, and which is exterior.  BUT, it can help figure out what's going on over adjacent squares bounded by as-yet unconnected pieces of the loop.  Pros and cons.  I'd certainly use it for a slow, tricky puzzle that I'd come un-stuck on, but if I'm going for speed it takes away more from my time than it adds.
drnull
Kwon-Tom Obsessive
Puzzles: 901
Best Total: 23m 25s
Posted - 2006.04.27 22:20:06
Quote:
Originally Posted by astrokath
It does work, up to a point, so you can quickly see which parts of the puzzle are on one side of the line, and which on the other.
Oh I believe it works.  I am just stating that I am too dense to come up with the rules for it myself.  I couldn't even get started on it.  My mind kept wandering back to my line rules. 
OldBean
Kwon-Tom Fan
Puzzles: 52
Best Total: 2h 15m 2s
Posted - 2006.04.28 06:43:45
As far as I can tell, you just start colouring in squares one colour if they're definitely outside the loop, and another colour if they're inside.  If two adjacent squares are the same colour, there must be an X between them.  If they're different colours, there must be a line between them.  1s and 3s must both have three neighbours of one colour, and one neighbour of another.

It's still a bit slow, but fun to play with.

The method suggested at the start of this thread does my head in, though.
kiwigeek
Kwon-Tom Noob
Puzzles: 4
Posted - 2006.05.17 08:21:42
Burko, I bet you're really good at Kwon-tom Wrong. I can't get my head around that at all, just can't work backwards to eliminate lines and Xs.
mathmaniac
Kwon-Tom Obsessive
Puzzles: 1198
Best Total: 20m 57s
Posted - 2006.05.20 16:09:11
I dont see how that works for you but if it does than go right ahead. Hey maybe you can do it better that way. Who knows? Right?

Forum Index