Post a message

Posting a reply to: [CTC] Comments on 2016-02-13's Tapa

Cancel
LMI Tests -> Daily Puzzles Contest


Guest name
Subject
Message	[QUOTE]CTC Comments - 2016-02-16 12:05 AM <b>Comments on 2016-02-13's Tapa</b><hr/><span class='smalltext'><b><i><a href='/forum/view-profile.asp?action=view&uid=823'>prasanna16391</a></i></b> commented at 2016-02-13 00:06:45</span><br/>Made a faulty assumption, had to restart, but really nice break-in with the 1111 forcing behaviour of the 112.<hr/><span class='smalltext'><b><i><a href='/forum/view-profile.asp?action=view&uid=1802'>swaroop2011</a></i></b> commented at 2016-02-13 00:09:20</span><br/>aah got stuck on this one. I think i am missing some start here. will have to try again.<hr/><span class='smalltext'><b><i><a href='/forum/view-profile.asp?action=view&uid=823'>prasanna16391</a></i></b> commented at 2016-02-13 00:21:05</span><br/>The start - the 1-1-1-1 in R7C4 forces the 1-1-2 below it to have its '2' around the 1-1-1-1-1 and so the 3-3 below the 1-1-2 can only have one of its '1's. This means R10R11C3 are shaded and their counterparts for the 3-3 clue, and I think it flows well from here.<hr/><span class='smalltext'><b><i><a href='/forum/view-profile.asp?action=view&uid=1787'>rob</a></i></b> commented at 2016-02-13 00:32:29</span><br/>Hah, damn, I made that deduction with that other 1111 next to the 12, but failed to see it near the 33. Weird.<hr/><span class='smalltext'><b><i><a href='/forum/view-profile.asp?action=view&uid=542'>rajeshk</a></i></b> commented at 2016-02-13 11:54:40</span><br/>Thanks Prasanna for giving the logical break. I guessed to solve this one. However after reading your comment, I could solve it fully logically :)<hr/><span class='smalltext'><b><i><a href='/forum/view-profile.asp?action=view&uid=6805'>masonjason</a></i></b> commented at 2016-02-13 19:13:57</span><br/>I thought the interaction of the left-hand pair of (1, 1, 1, 1)s via the (2, 3) was beautiful<hr/><span class='smalltext'><b><i><a href='/forum/view-profile.asp?action=view&uid=2625'>john_reid</a></i></b> commented at 2016-02-14 01:49:32</span><br/>Well I was able to solve this with no guessing but unfortunately someone stopped by when I was in the middle of it and I ended up chatting for 45 minutes with them before I got back to the puzzle! It was a great puzzle though and I'm proud that I was able to work out that 1-1-1-1 and 1-1-2 interaction that Prasanna described and didn't have to resort to any guessing. Very satisfying!<hr/>[/QUOTE]
HTML: Yes Anonymous: No MBBS Code: Yes	Disable HTML

You are replying to:

CTC Comments

Subject: [CTC] Comments on 2016-02-13's Tapa @ 2016-02-16 12:05 AM (#21004 - in reply to #20393) (#21004)

Quote Reply Top

Comments on 2016-02-13's Tapa

prasanna16391 commented at 2016-02-13 00:06:45
Made a faulty assumption, had to restart, but really nice break-in with the 1111 forcing behaviour of the 112.

swaroop2011 commented at 2016-02-13 00:09:20
aah got stuck on this one. I think i am missing some start here. will have to try again.

prasanna16391 commented at 2016-02-13 00:21:05
The start - the 1-1-1-1 in R7C4 forces the 1-1-2 below it to have its '2' around the 1-1-1-1-1 and so the 3-3 below the 1-1-2 can only have one of its '1's. This means R10R11C3 are shaded and their counterparts for the 3-3 clue, and I think it flows well from here.

rob commented at 2016-02-13 00:32:29
Hah, damn, I made that deduction with that other 1111 next to the 12, but failed to see it near the 33. Weird.

rajeshk commented at 2016-02-13 11:54:40
Thanks Prasanna for giving the logical break. I guessed to solve this one. However after reading your comment, I could solve it fully logically :)

masonjason commented at 2016-02-13 19:13:57
I thought the interaction of the left-hand pair of (1, 1, 1, 1)s via the (2, 3) was beautiful

john_reid commented at 2016-02-14 01:49:32
Well I was able to solve this with no guessing but unfortunately someone stopped by when I was in the middle of it and I ended up chatting for 45 minutes with them before I got back to the puzzle! It was a great puzzle though and I'm proud that I was able to work out that 1-1-1-1 and 1-1-2 interaction that Prasanna described and didn't have to resort to any guessing. Very satisfying!