Puzzle Description Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

#1: Norma Dee (norm0908) on Oct 29, 2012

Is this one of those shadows made with your hand?

can't say yet Norma :)

It looks like one of those coo coo birds from the rain forest. Good one Tom.:)

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

:) Kurt you win the NO trophy award this time

Quail? they have a little top knot.

Comment Suppressed:Click below to view spoilers

I used EL to dot c2, r1-3 and c8, r1. I'll continue to try and work through this, but I don't see the next step.

tom, it's in the c7 with the 5....after you get as far as normal ll, check out that column. it can't extend all the way upwards without dotting the entire bottom part of the column, which would cause a conflict in the rows at the bottom....ie, you can place a dot at the top and then consequently a black. it'll solve from there

Thanks, Kurt. I don't get that until 3 moves ahead, and it actually conflicts with c2 (forcing the 5s and 6 left).

I'm not rating it. I do see your logic, Kurt, but I believe it is more than two moves ahead. Intuitively, I could have easily guessed at the solution.

I'm not sure you seen exactly what I did, but obviously you've seen something that works. my way was no more than one move ahead. I'm sure you can intuitively guess. you've been at this a while. no one sees everything, but you're no lout. you get things many never see. Hope I helped, Tom.

Thanks, Kurt. We'll agree to disagree on the solvability of this puzzle. I won't rate it. I did see your point that the 5 can't go up, but it took two moves after that to negate the 2 in c2 (pushing the 5s and the 6 into that column necessitating 3 which is a contradiction). Maybe Gator will come along and give his expertise. Kurt, I really appreciate your comments and replies. Thanks, Tom

I appreciate your candor....but, you know....I think someone needs to qualify what exactly constitutes the next move ahead. we're on the same page. but I simply just see it, and you're counting. I really just see it, that is must be that way. not sure how you gather multiple more steps. how would it be written in a math equation? if the 5 is in r whatever, then blah blah blah. it's only one step for me. maybe I skip steps....

Kurt: No worries, my friend. It's only a puzzle, and we will sleep well tonight. Thanks for the dialogue. That was fun. Looking forward to golfing with you someday. I certainly am no expert in puzzles. If I pretended that I am, I apologize. I just couldn't solve it. Best regards, Tom

Golfing,where are you guys going golfing and can i join in the round? Maybe Norma can make it a foursome. Let's play skins.:)

One good idea, in case of a hurricane, is to stay at high elevations, one bad idea is to stay close to a body of water.

Some tricky logic in this one! Once you are left with the middle two columns, look at c6 and realize you can't connect two as true there. Square to left has to go at least nine cells.

After LL, Kurt's move and more LL get's you almost to the end. two-way dots C5R1 and LL to finish.

Kurt's move is pretty classic internal edge logic. on this site is accepted as one move ahead. you can look at it as "those three can't all be dots or they violate...."

Well, Kurt's move is a bit fancier than the usual edge logic move. It does involve another step:

If R3C7 is black
then R8-10 C7 must be dots
so R8-10 in C2 must be black
which contradicts the clue in C2
so R3C7 must be white.

Your normal edge logic wouldn't have that second line, so I think that this move does require a bit more lookahead that is normally allowed under the "moderate lookahead" category.

Dave's reformulation starts with "those three can't all be dots" which reduces it to two steps by starting at the second step. But then you need to take another step to conclude that if they can't be dots then R3C7 must be a dot.

But in a small puzzle like this it isn't really that hard to follow these three step arguments. Should we loosen the definitions in the case of small puzzles? I'm inclined not to. Unless someone finds a simpler attack, I think this is a "deep look ahead" puzzle. But you can't really go all that deep in a small pond.

Found to be solvable with deep lookahead by jan.

okay Jan, a deep bird's eye view :D

how about this?

- LL
- whether C2R10 or C7R10 is black, C7R8 is black.
- LL
- if blot in C5 extends to R1 it violates C6, so C5R1 is a dot
- LL to end

i actually just restarted and didn't look back at previous clues...this might be the same as before. too sleepy to check :/

These new instructions check out! (However, the two-way logic is so non-obvious that I'm guessing it must have been a back-formation from the way you actually found.)

So this is "moderate lookahead, but good luck finding it."

Found to be solvable with moderate lookahead by infrapinklizzard.

:D thx Joe

funny enough, that is exactly how i found it with no reverse engineering. i just over-analyze everything.

kudos

This is way after everyone seems to have finished this one, but I got a multiple solutions message. Anyone know what's up?

If you look under the title above it says moderate lookahead. Which means you have to use more sophisticated solving techniques to solve it. There are blow by blow instructions in #21 and #24 above. Also Jan has written a how-to on this site explaining the more advanced techniques.

That is very odd, Joshua. Either you misinterpreted what was said, or the server sent you a wrong message. This still comes up as moderate lookahead (and so, necessarily, single solution), and there was no declaration by the webpbn robot that an alternate solution was found.

3 years later ... WOW ... that's a birds eye view :D

Of what? Had to guess once.

Show: Spoilers

Goto next topic

You must register and log in to be able to participate in this discussion.