Mintmaster said:This is good to know. My paper just started with these puzzles, and my rudimentary solver kept solving them day after day. I was beginning to doubt if it's even possible to design a solvable puzzle that required insight/backtracking/permuting, but this nulls those doubts
"57 6 ",
" 2 74 1 ",
"4 8 ",
" 568 492",
" 78 ",
" 2 3 ",
" 5127",
"13 9 ",
" 6 "
Sorry, yes I'd just realised that .. I think I accidentally deleted one or two of the clues whilst editing the file/debugging. As it currently stands, it has several solutions.Basic said:The first one doesn't seem to be a "real" Sudoku.
I would have thought generating a puzzle would be, well, fairly straightforward... but perhaps I'm being naiive.Frederik21 said:The generator works by repeatedly calling the solving algorithms to check out the validity of placed numbers. The numbers (1 through 9) are placed in sets of their value, because filling in the grid from top to bottom took ages.
Thanks for the link. I just tried one of the "Really Tough" puzzles and solved it in about 6 minutes. I'll give the outlaw ones a try later.Basic said:A good site for puzzles that are a bit more challenging than the usual newspaper-Sudoku is:
http://www.paulspages.co.uk/sudoku/index.htm
You can either generate new Sudoku with various difficulty levels, or pick one from the gallery. The gallery has a "outlaw" section with Sudoku that need testing and back-tracking.
Doesn't that tell you something about your choice of algorithm.......K.I.L.E.R said:I would like to let you guys know that my GA has been finished for 2 weeks.
I left it on for 5 hours yesterday and it hasn't solved it.
It does come quite close to solving it however.
Frederik21 said:The numbers (1 through 9) are placed in sets of their value, because filling in the grid from top to bottom took ages. Kind of like the 8 queens problem, but with a lot more interdependent constraints.
K.I.L.E.R said:I would like to let you guys know that my GA has been finished for 2 weeks.
I left it on for 5 hours yesterday and it hasn't solved it.
It does come quite close to solving it however.
Simon F said:Doesn't that tell you something about your choice of algorithm.......
The simple C program I wrote solves them in sub-millisecond time (and it's not optimised - but why would one bother? ).
In that case, could you at least allow letters or other symbols to be entered in? It's nice to be able to make notes and it's rather difficult to do that without either printing the page OR writing all over the screenFrederik21 said:Hey Simon - thanks for the feedback
As for the numbering of candidates, I know a lot of people use this, but I never did and I think it clutters the application too much - more of a stylistic decision than anything else.
I'll have to test this... I'll hack my program at lunchtime to see how long it takes from a "nearly blank" board.The creation method you mention is what I tried out first, but it generates probems that calls for massive backtracking (slowing down the app), because placing the numbers in that way doesn't take into consideration that legally placed numbers can block the possible position of other numbers later on.
When my solver resorts to recursion, I always start with the square with the fewest candidates - do you use that approach?You may actually fill in almost the entire board legally, and then come to a dead end (no possible candidates for next field) and you will have to backtrack many steps and rearrange