Diagonal Vision Author
Posts: 337
 
Location: Switzerland | prasanna16391 - I could be very capable at both Sudokus and Puzzles but shouldn't need my puzzle solving capabilities extensively in a Sudoku competition. That's all I meant and I thought that's what you were going for too, because "X is a puzzle" and "X is a Sudoku" is just too subjective a discussion anyway.
I'm sorry but I could not disagree more with all your assertions. When I try to transpose what you say to other puzzle types, It become evident that lot of things are intellectually and hystorically inconsistent. I'll try to explain clearly these inconsistencies.
- Saying "X is a nurikabe", "X is a Masyu", "X is a magnets": I don't think it is much subjective, why should it be subjective with sudoku???
- If I take the round 3 of WPC 2017 and remove the puzzle names, I don't think lot of players will have problems to find what puzzle types they are, and I don't think you need to solve each puzzle before saying what puzzle type they are. It means it doesn't depend on which kind of skills you used so solve it.
- If it is so much subjective for sudoku, it should be the same for other puzzle types, too. It means you would not have any problem to find masyus and slitherlinks that are not loop puzzles, shikakus that are not region division puzzles, nurikabe that are not shading puzzles. Please show me some examples !
- I think the first thing we can say about sudoku is that it is a symbol placement puzzle. I'm quite sure this is why some people classified the round 4 of WSC as non-sudoku.
- The method you use to classify puzzles into puzzle types, which consist of a) finding some relations between a puzzle X and a sudoku variant is sufficiant to say the puzzle X is a sudoku and b) experienced sudoku solvers have skills to solve a puzzle X, then puzzle X is a sudoku.
This method is much more subjective than speaking about properties and rules (some puzzle are of same type because they share same properties and rules), plus this method doesn't correspond to common practice in other puzzle field than sudoku.
You'll find a lot of example where you can transpose your skills from puzzle type to another (examples : 2 even 2 odd sudoku -> tic tac logic, irregular sudoku -> star battle puzzles, etc... I'm sure as an experienced puzzle player, you can find a lot of these examples).
Historically, it's wrong : The very-well known sudoku variants like killer sudoku, non-consecutive sudoku, GT sudoku, etc... were not classified in sudoku genre because these require the same capabilities to solve than classic sudoku. These are sudoku variants because they share some rules and properties with classic sudoku. Actually a player who would be experienced at classic sudoku but inexperienced in variant would have to develop lot of new skills to solve sudoku variants.
-> I agree with the relations you made between puzzle types and perhaps with your theories on capabilities, but again it tells nothing about puzzle types.
I don't know lot of definitions of sudoku that are self-consistent (in the meaning that sudoku is a puzzle type) and correspond to the historical basic facts that are not subjective. Here are 2 of them :
- As you said, some people define sudoku to be only classic sudoku. It seems consistent to me, this is not our way of thinking, but if you don't have another clear definition to oppose to that, I understand why people insist with you each year after indian sudoku championship.
I made a proposal few years ago about how to treat classic sudoku at WSC, so that perhaps those players may find something for them...
I understand the reasons why this is not the definition we use for WSC. For example it seems that 3-4 rounds of 20-30 minutes seems enough to make a fair classic sudoku competition, and we want to play more during WSC.
- A very succinct but clear definition of sudoku variant was written in an author's blog in 2010. I write it in french first, I'm not sure my translation will be as good :
"Une variante est un dérivé du sudoku dont le principe est de respecter les règles de base du jeu, tout en y ajoutant une ou plusieurs autre(s) contrainte(s)."
"A variant is a derivative of (classic) sudoku whose principle is to respect the basic rules of the puzzle, while adding one or more other constraint(s). "
It would be necessary to explicit what the basic rules are, but I find this definition very clear.
I'm now waiting for a WPF defintion for several years. I'm quite sure people will not have any problem to write a definition of masyu or akari in a very short period of time, and I ask myself what are the problems they encounter with sudoku? I hope it is not linked with the fact they want to promote a wider range of puzzles !
prasanna16391 - I think the best thing to do, for any competition, is to outline before it what will and won't appear, and then let participants decide if that is alright with them.
If we go to the end of your reasoning, it would be ok if the organizers of WSC 2018 say "we define sudoku as the set of loop puzzles". Then you will have a "World Sudoku Championship" based on solving loop puzzles. No, no and no !
In conclusion, I would say :
- sudoku is a puzzle type,
- WSC should be a competition where players solve sudoku.
- WSC should not be a competition where players solve puzzles which organizers think these players will be able to solve based on presumed skills.
- If you think solving sudoku only in WSC is not enough, then stop organizing a WSC, replace it by something that will fit your goal to promote wider range of puzzles (a 5 days WPC, a competition containing any grid based logic puzzle which has a set of numbers, etc... but don't call it World Sudoku Championship).
- The WPF goal regarding sudoku seems to be exclusively to gain from name's popularity.
- If the WPF supervise WSC, please take the responsibilities that are related (like saying what is the competition about, overseeing that it is consistent each year, promoting it, etc...).
- Stop judging people whose goal is to solve exclusively sudoku at WSC.
- Don't apply absurd rules for the only pupose to promote wider range of puzzles, this would be counterproductive.
- I find your nihilistic attitude: "it's all perspective", "it's subjective", "it is just according to you", "all of it is your personal definition" inappropriate in this debate,
Fred
|
WSPC 2017 • Schedule • Participation • Location • WSC • WPC • Contact •Search •Recent
WSC report
