![]() While the varied ratings may apply to the most esoteric human solvers, who persist with perfect top to bottom or 1 to 9 scanning, these ratings in general seem inconsistent with the expected human solving experience of sudoku. In one extreme case, a 90 degree rotation of a puzzle led to a 50% increase in the rating for the puzzle. Both number ordering and top-to-bottom, left-to-right biases were observed in the grading of isomorphic puzzles. We also examined how transformations would affect computer ratings, specifically those of Scanraid Sudoku. The subject's results suggest that the likely mean and standard deviation in solving time on an exact duplicate is very close to that of a transformed grid. The fastest/slowest grid outliers were then resolved without further transformation. Considering his solution times, a 15-20% standard deviation in time was observed across the isomorphic versions of each puzzle. Our subject, an advanced division contestant at the recent Sudoku National Championship, was able to identify the grid with the unusual solving property from the set of 26 puzzles, and also identified several commonalities within the remaining isomorphic puzzles. ![]() A sixth puzzle with an unusual solving property was also transformed and added to the set for twenty-six test puzzles. We generated five isomorphic copies of five sudoku puzzles using digit reassignment, row/column/chute swapping, and rotation/reflection. Fortunately, I know an eccentric scientist with an advanced degree in "Number Placement" who has a relevant manuscript to share with you:Įffects of Transformations of Sudoku Puzzles on Solution Times of an Advanced Solver These questions necessarily lead to a discussion of mean and variance and nuances of the solving process a fitting answer requires a careful analysis of how an actual human solver performs from puzzle to puzzle in a controlled setting. What if you had to conduct a retest for sudoku? What kind of standardized puzzles or times would suffice to conclusively prove either the ability or inability to finish three puzzles in 14 minutes? How many puzzles would be needed and what would these be? Can sudoku be made "retestable" to indeed prove Eugene is detestable? However, the tournament organizers came up with a process that could clarify matters: the contestant would be offered a second chance to solve more sudoku puzzles under closer watch to demonstrate his proficiency and to deflect the allegations of cheating. Sudoku-related curiosities such as "unreasonable sticking points" or "missing pencilmarks" were unlikely to satisfy all parties necessary to disqualify the competitor. While a lot of circumstantial evidence supported this case, no smoking gun was likely to be found from looking at video and photography from the event itself. About four weeks ago, a former sudoku champion rang a bell that cannot be unrung by claiming a fellow finalist was a cheater.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |