This looks new:
https://www.brainbashers.com/surroundokuhelp.asp
I can't find any reference to it elseWeb, so this one might be Kevin's invention.
Any strategies so far? Here are the ones I've worked out so far:
WWW
W0W
WWW
BBB
B9B
BBB
|typo?
|BB
|4B
+---
|BB
|6B
|BB
|BBB
|66B
|BBB
?4?
?7?
BBB
Any more?
On 26/11/2025 23:34, Richard Heathfield wrote:
This looks new:My first thought is that they're just too easy.-a In fact the ones
https://www.brainbashers.com/surroundokuhelp.asp
I can't find any reference to it elseWeb, so this one might be
Kevin's invention.
I've attempted were "trivial" in the sense I explain below...
Any strategies so far? Here are the ones I've worked out so far:
WWW
W0W
WWW
...-a-a-a WWW
.0. -> WWW
...-a-a-a WWW
BBB
B9B
BBB
...-a-a-a BBB
.9. -> BBB
...-a-a-a BBB
etc.
typo?
|
|BB
|4B
+---
|BB
|6B
|BB
|BBB
|66B
|BBB
|...-a-a-a |BBW
|66. -> |BBW
|...-a-a-a |BBW
I don't like my notation either, but don't have anything better
in ASCII text.
?4?
?7?
BBB
-a..-a .4-a ..
-a..-a .7-a ..-a ->-a ???-a I don't see any definite squares we can
fix...
-aB.-a B.-a B.
The overall feeling for the game is very like MineSweeper.-a Start
from easily deduced squares, and then gradually work out along
the edges of the known area.-a It's not like sudoku at all.
For my environment (Windows with MS Edge browser) the right-click
to set a square does not work properly - it does set the square,
but also still displays the standard (MS Edge) right-click
context menu.
Most serious criticism:-a All the above patterns can be summarised
as "apply forced squares", where by forced squares I mean
squares /directly/ implied by rules.-a Akin to blocking an X.X row
to make XOX in noughts and crosses, or in Kevin's 3-In-A-Row
puzzles - such patterns hardly need to be listed as they're just
"directly forced moves".-a Such rules are just noting that the
reader can correctly read the rules.-a All the puzzles I've
attempted so far have been solvable simply from repeatedly
applying this one simple rule which is entirely obvious from the
game rules.-a As such, the puzzles seems to be uninteresting!-a Of
course, maybe I've been unlucky in my choice of puzzles - I've
only done a handful.-a I'll carry on for a few days to see if any non-trivial puzzles crop up, but I'll soon stop if they're all
like this.
I'm tempted to go further and suggest that if a puzzle can be
solved by repeatably applying just one obvious rule, then
arguably it's not worthy of being called a puzzle.-a It's on the
same level with WordGrid "puzzles" where you have to find each of
a given list of words in a grid of letters - is that really a
puzzle?-a I suppose you could make such "puzzles" more fun by
making them a timed competition - a race! (..but still not very
puzzling..)
How about this puzzle I've just invented:-a (I'll call the
Sequidoku puzzles)
-a-a-a .-a .-a .-a .-a . 30-a .-a .
Rules:
1. replace each dot with a number
2. for any two adjacent numbers, the right hand number must be
one more than the left number.
Here is one way to solve my "puzzle" :
-a-a-a .-a .-a .-a .-a . 30-a .-a .
-a-a-a .-a .-a .-a .-a . 30 31-a .
-a-a-a .-a .-a .-a . 29 30 31-a .
-a-a-a .-a .-a . 28 29 30 31-a .
-a-a-a .-a . 27 28 29 30 31-a .
-a-a-a .-a . 27 28 29 30 31 32
-a-a-a . 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
-a-a 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Solved!-a Again by just one obvious rule, which is actually listed
in the game rules.
NOT MUCH FUN, but no different really from Surroundoku. :(
Kevin's "3-In-A-Row" puzzle is also in this class of "puzzles"
which can all be solved with just one single rule.-a Actually,
probably /two/ rules:
1. "block /direct/ violation of game constraints (XX. --> XXO etc.)
2. a simple but not-quite-so-obvious extension of rule 1.
So Surroundoku is /even easier/ than 3-In-A-Row!-a (It's like 3-
In-A-Row solvable only with rule 1!)
It's not that Surroundoku and 3-In-A-Row are inherently
uninteresting [unlike my invented Sequidoku!] - I'm sure someone
could create genuine puzzles out of them, so I'm really making a
criticism of Kevin's puzzle-generating process.
On 27/11/2025 04:14, Mike Terry wrote:
On 26/11/2025 23:34, Richard Heathfield wrote:
This looks new:My first thought is that they're just too easy.a In fact the ones I've attempted were "trivial" in
https://www.brainbashers.com/surroundokuhelp.asp
I can't find any reference to it elseWeb, so this one might be Kevin's invention.
the sense I explain below...
The smaller ones, yes. I hit my wall at 10x10 - I suspect there's a knack I have yet to acquire.
Any strategies so far? Here are the ones I've worked out so far:
WWW
W0W
WWW
...aaa WWW
.0. -> WWW
...aaa WWW
Yes, but the 0W key is unaccountably missing from my keyboard.
BBB
B9B
BBB
...aaa BBB
.9. -> BBB
...aaa BBB
etc.
typo?
|
|BB
|4B
+---
|BB
|6B
|BB
|BBB
|66B
|BBB
Oh yeah. I was halfway through an defence when I saw I'd typed that instead of...
|...aaa |BBW
|66. -> |BBW
|...aaa |BBW
...that.
I don't like my notation either, but don't have anything better in ASCII text.
Quite.
?4?
?7?
BBB
aa..a .4a ..
aa..a .7a ..a ->a ???a I don't see any definite squares we can fix...
aaB.a B.a B.
a4b
c7d
efg
Out of the six squares
a4b
c7d
a maximum of 4 can be black, so the 7 needs to find 3 more black squares from somewhere else, and
efg are the only candidates.
The overall feeling for the game is very like MineSweeper.a Start from easily deduced squares, and
then gradually work out along the edges of the known area.a It's not like sudoku at all.
<nod>
For my environment (Windows with MS Edge browser) the right-click to set a square does not work
properly - it does set the square, but also still displays the standard (MS Edge) right-click
context menu.
KS may apprec a bug report?
Most serious criticism:a All the above patterns can be summarised as "apply forced squares", where
by forced squares I mean squares /directly/ implied by rules.a Akin to blocking an X.X row to make
XOX in noughts and crosses, or in Kevin's 3-In-A-Row puzzles - such patterns hardly need to be
listed as they're just "directly forced moves".a Such rules are just noting that the reader can
correctly read the rules.a All the puzzles I've attempted so far have been solvable simply from
repeatedly applying this one simple rule which is entirely obvious from the game rules.a As such,
the puzzles seems to be uninteresting!a Of course, maybe I've been unlucky in my choice of puzzles
- I've only done a handful.a I'll carry on for a few days to see if any non-trivial puzzles crop
up, but I'll soon stop if they're all like this.
That has not been my experience, but then I'm pretty sure I'm quite a bit denser than the average
puzzle solver.
I'm tempted to go further and suggest that if a puzzle can be solved by repeatably applying just
one obvious rule, then arguably it's not worthy of being called a puzzle.a It's on the same level
with WordGrid "puzzles" where you have to find each of a given list of words in a grid of letters
- is that really a puzzle?a I suppose you could make such "puzzles" more fun by making them a
timed competition - a race! (..but still not very puzzling..)
I don't like wordsearches either; when in hospital a while back and faced with them or nothing I did
indeed try to devise optimising strategies.
How about this puzzle I've just invented:a (I'll call the Sequidoku puzzles) >>
aaaa .a .a .a .a . 30a .a .
Rules:
1. replace each dot with a number
2. for any two adjacent numbers, the right hand number must be one more than the left number.
Here is one way to solve my "puzzle" :
aaaa .a .a .a .a . 30a .a .
aaaa .a .a .a .a . 30 31a .
aaaa .a .a .a . 29 30 31a .
aaaa .a .a . 28 29 30 31a .
aaaa .a . 27 28 29 30 31a .
aaaa .a . 27 28 29 30 31 32
aaaa . 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
aaa 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Solved!a Again by just one obvious rule, which is actually listed in the game rules.
NOT MUCH FUN, but no different really from Surroundoku. :(
I have yet to discover a way to frame the one obvious rule in a way that gives me the solution.
Kevin's "3-In-A-Row" puzzle is also in this class of "puzzles" which can all be solved with just
one single rule.a Actually, probably /two/ rules:
1. "block /direct/ violation of game constraints (XX. --> XXO etc.)
2. a simple but not-quite-so-obvious extension of rule 1.
That's certainly true for the smaller puzzles. I have not found it to be a scalable fault. I find
the 18x18s to be exponentially harder - still soluble, but by no means obvious.
So Surroundoku is /even easier/ than 3-In-A-Row!a (It's like 3- In-A-Row solvable only with rule 1!)
Not my experience. I had several cracks at the 25x25 and gave up each time.
On 27/11/2025 16:26, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 27/11/2025 04:14, Mike Terry wrote:
On 26/11/2025 23:34, Richard Heathfield wrote:
a4b
c7d
efg
Out of the six squares
a4b
c7d
a maximum of 4 can be black, so the 7 needs to find 3 more
black squares from somewhere else, and efg are the only
candidates.
Ah, right - that's valid.-a (I was misunderstanding the
notation.)-a With my notation that would be:
-a ..-a .4-a ..-a-a-a-a-a ..-a .4-a ..
-a ..-a .7-a ..-a ->-a ..-a .7-a ..
-a ..-a ..-a ..-a-a-a-a-a B.-a B.-a B.
That's a genuine pattern beyond what the rules say directly!-a The
puzzles I looked at did not require such advanced logic to solve...
The overall feeling for the game is very like MineSweeper.
Start from easily deduced squares, and then gradually work out
along the edges of the known area.-a It's not like sudoku at all.
<nod>
For my environment (Windows with MS Edge browser) the right-
click to set a square does not work properly - it does set the
square, but also still displays the standard (MS Edge) right-
click context menu.
KS may apprec a bug report?
Yeah, I'll look for a place to do that.
How about this puzzle I've just invented:-a (I'll call the
Sequidoku puzzles)
NOT MUCH FUN, but no different really from Surroundoku. :(
I have yet to discover a way to frame the one obvious rule in a
way that gives me the solution.
You mean for my Sequidoku puzzle?
For Surroundoku the equivalent rule would be
1.-a If the game constraints are directly violated, if a square is
coloured anything
-a-a-a but one specific colour, then you can mark the square with
that colour.
For example:
-a...-a-a-a WWW
-a.0. -> WWW
-a...-a-a-a WWW
(Making any of the W squares B would directly violate the
constraint that the 0 square has 0 black squares as neighbors.)
More commonly, we have more colours filled in, but the principle
is the same:
-a W.-a B.-a W.-a-a-a-a-a W.-a B.-a W.
-a B.-a B4-a W.-a-a-a-a-a B.-a B4-a W.
-a W.-a W6-a ..-a ->-a W.-a W6-a B.
The constraints say that the middle square marked B4 has 4 black neighbors.-a If the bottom right square were marked W that would
violate that constraint.
This kind of direct reasoning has been enough for me to solve all
the puzzles I tried.
I am convinced just my two "patterns" are sufficient.-a It's not
unusual for me to "get stuck" solving one of the puzzles, and I
mechanically go through the puzzle trying to apply the patterns,
and conclude there are no places to apply them - I'm going to
have to genuinely reason my way out of this, maybe coming up with
a new kind of pattern!-a (This happens frequently in most puzzle
types, and is what makes them fun!)
Then eventually I see that I'd just missed something, and my two
rules /were/ sufficient after all. Even if I've gone through the
loop 4 times /really/ carefully, it will always be the case that
I'm just missing something.-a I'm convinced that Kevin's puzzle
generator checks that the puzzle is solvable by simply verifying
that my two patterns are sufficient to solve the puzzle.-a In that
sense, I've worked out everything there is to work out about
those puzzles, and if I solved 10000 more of them I would never
have to think more than I've already thought about it.-a (I don't
like that...)
So Surroundoku is /even easier/ than 3-In-A-Row!-a (It's like
3- In-A-Row solvable only with rule 1!)
Not my experience. I had several cracks at the 25x25 and gave
up each time.
I guess the only way to check here is for you to post a position
where you're stuck, and we'll see if there are any "direct
constraint" patterns that you've missed.
On 27/11/2025 16:26, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 27/11/2025 04:14, Mike Terry wrote:
On 26/11/2025 23:34, Richard Heathfield wrote:
This looks new:My first thought is that they're just too easy.-a In fact the ones I've attempted were "trivial" in
https://www.brainbashers.com/surroundokuhelp.asp
I can't find any reference to it elseWeb, so this one might be Kevin's invention.
the sense I explain below...
The smaller ones, yes. I hit my wall at 10x10 - I suspect there's a knack I have yet to acquire.
Any strategies so far? Here are the ones I've worked out so far:
WWW
W0W
WWW
...-a-a-a WWW
.0. -> WWW
...-a-a-a WWW
Yes, but the 0W key is unaccountably missing from my keyboard.
BBB
B9B
BBB
...-a-a-a BBB
.9. -> BBB
...-a-a-a BBB
etc.
typo?
|
|BB
|4B
+---
|BB
|6B
|BB
|BBB
|66B
|BBB
Oh yeah. I was halfway through an defence when I saw I'd typed that instead of...
|...-a-a-a |BBW
|66. -> |BBW
|...-a-a-a |BBW
...that.
I don't like my notation either, but don't have anything better in ASCII text.
Quite.
?4?
?7?
BBB
-a-a..-a .4-a ..
-a-a..-a .7-a ..-a ->-a ???-a I don't see any definite squares we can fix...
-a-aB.-a B.-a B.
a4b
c7d
efg
Out of the six squares
a4b
c7d
a maximum of 4 can be black, so the 7 needs to find 3 more black squares from somewhere else, and
efg are the only candidates.
Ah, right - that's valid. (I was misunderstanding the notation.) With my notation that would be:
.. .4 .. .. .4 ..
.. .7 .. -> .. .7 ..
.. .. .. B. B. B.
That's a genuine pattern beyond what the rules say directly! The puzzles I looked at did not
require such advanced logic to solve...
The overall feeling for the game is very like MineSweeper.-a Start from easily deduced squares, and
then gradually work out along the edges of the known area.-a It's not like sudoku at all.
<nod>
For my environment (Windows with MS Edge browser) the right-click to set a square does not work
properly - it does set the square, but also still displays the standard (MS Edge) right-click
context menu.
KS may apprec a bug report?
Yeah, I'll look for a place to do that.
Most serious criticism:-a All the above patterns can be summarised as "apply forced squares", where
by forced squares I mean squares /directly/ implied by rules.-a Akin to blocking an X.X row to make
XOX in noughts and crosses, or in Kevin's 3-In-A-Row puzzles - such patterns hardly need to be
listed as they're just "directly forced moves".-a Such rules are just noting that the reader can
correctly read the rules.-a All the puzzles I've attempted so far have been solvable simply from
repeatedly applying this one simple rule which is entirely obvious from the game rules.-a As such,
the puzzles seems to be uninteresting!-a Of course, maybe I've been unlucky in my choice of puzzles
- I've only done a handful.-a I'll carry on for a few days to see if any non-trivial puzzles crop
up, but I'll soon stop if they're all like this.
That has not been my experience, but then I'm pretty sure I'm quite a bit denser than the average
puzzle solver.
I'm tempted to go further and suggest that if a puzzle can be solved by repeatably applying just
one obvious rule, then arguably it's not worthy of being called a puzzle.-a It's on the same level
with WordGrid "puzzles" where you have to find each of a given list of words in a grid of letters
- is that really a puzzle?-a I suppose you could make such "puzzles" more fun by making them a
timed competition - a race! (..but still not very puzzling..)
I don't like wordsearches either; when in hospital a while back and faced with them or nothing I did
indeed try to devise optimising strategies.
How about this puzzle I've just invented:-a (I'll call the Sequidoku puzzles)
-a-a-a-a .-a .-a .-a .-a . 30-a .-a .
Rules:
1. replace each dot with a number
2. for any two adjacent numbers, the right hand number must be one more than the left number.
Here is one way to solve my "puzzle" :
-a-a-a-a .-a .-a .-a .-a . 30-a .-a .
-a-a-a-a .-a .-a .-a .-a . 30 31-a .
-a-a-a-a .-a .-a .-a . 29 30 31-a .
-a-a-a-a .-a .-a . 28 29 30 31-a .
-a-a-a-a .-a . 27 28 29 30 31-a .
-a-a-a-a .-a . 27 28 29 30 31 32
-a-a-a-a . 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
-a-a-a 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Solved!-a Again by just one obvious rule, which is actually listed in the game rules.
NOT MUCH FUN, but no different really from Surroundoku. :(
I have yet to discover a way to frame the one obvious rule in a way that gives me the solution.
You mean for my Sequidoku puzzle? You get that when we have
30 .
as in the above puzzle, there's only one legal number the . can be? (31)
We could formally make this a pattern:
n . --> n n+1
Similarly
. n --> n-1 n
Perhaps we count that as 2 patterns? Fine, but they are both just directly applying the given game
constraints where clearly only one number is possible. Or we could make it a "procedural rule",
something like:
- For an empty square, if it has a filled in neighbour, then the constraints of
Sequidoku allow only one number for the square - mark the square with that number!
For Surroundoku the equivalent rule would be
1. If the game constraints are directly violated, if a square is coloured anything
but one specific colour, then you can mark the square with that colour.
For example:
... WWW
.0. -> WWW
... WWW
(Making any of the W squares B would directly violate the constraint that the 0 square has 0 black
squares as neighbors.)
More commonly, we have more colours filled in, but the principle is the same:
W. B. W. W. B. W.
B. B4 W. B. B4 W.
W. W6 .. -> W. W6 B.
The constraints say that the middle square marked B4 has 4 black neighbors. If the bottom right
square were marked W that would violate that constraint.
This kind of direct reasoning has been enough for me to solve all the puzzles I tried.
Kevin's "3-In-A-Row" puzzle is also in this class of "puzzles" which can all be solved with just
one single rule.-a Actually, probably /two/ rules:
1. "block /direct/ violation of game constraints (XX. --> XXO etc.)
2. a simple but not-quite-so-obvious extension of rule 1.
That's certainly true for the smaller puzzles. I have not found it to be a scalable fault. I find
the 18x18s to be exponentially harder - still soluble, but by no means obvious.
I am convinced just my two "patterns" are sufficient. It's not unusual for me to "get stuck"
solving one of the puzzles, and I mechanically go through the puzzle trying to apply the patterns,
and conclude there are no places to apply them - I'm going to have to genuinely reason my way out of
this, maybe coming up with a new kind of pattern! (This happens frequently in most puzzle types,
and is what makes them fun!)
Then eventually I see that I'd just missed something, and my two rules /were/ sufficient after all.
Even if I've gone through the loop 4 times /really/ carefully, it will always be the case that I'm
just missing something. I'm convinced that Kevin's puzzle generator checks that the puzzle is
solvable by simply verifying that my two patterns are sufficient to solve the puzzle. In that
sense, I've worked out everything there is to work out about those puzzles, and if I solved 10000
more of them I would never have to think more than I've already thought about it. (I don't like
that...)
So Surroundoku is /even easier/ than 3-In-A-Row!-a (It's like 3- In-A-Row solvable only with rule 1!)
Not my experience. I had several cracks at the 25x25 and gave up each time.
I guess the only way to check here is for you to post a position where you're stuck, and we'll see
if there are any "direct constraint" patterns that you've missed. (Such missings wouldn't be any
patterns you've not thought about, just blind spots which we all get. Once I did a WordSearch
puzzle and was convinced a particular word wasn't in the grid, but then my friend looked and saw it
straight away - Doh!
Mike.
https://www.brainbashers.com/surroundokuhelp.asp
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2So Surroundoku is /even easier/ than 3-In-A-Row!-a (It's like 3-In-A-Row solvable only with rule 1!)
On 27/11/2025 18:30, Mike Terry wrote:
242 lines - understandable, but I'm applying a liberal axe.
On 27/11/2025 16:26, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 27/11/2025 04:14, Mike Terry wrote:
On 26/11/2025 23:34, Richard Heathfield wrote:
<snip>
a4b
c7d
efg
Out of the six squares
a4b
c7d
a maximum of 4 can be black, so the 7 needs to find 3 more black squares from somewhere else, and
efg are the only candidates.
Ah, right - that's valid.a (I was misunderstanding the notation.)a With my notation that would be:
aa ..a .4a ..aaaaa ..a .4a ..
aa ..a .7a ..a ->a ..a .7a ..
aa ..a ..a ..aaaaa B.a B.a B.
Aha! Reminiscent of DOS TUI attribute bytes.
That's a genuine pattern beyond what the rules say directly!a The puzzles I looked at did not
require such advanced logic to solve...
It's tempting to cut code looking for patterns.
The overall feeling for the game is very like MineSweeper. Start from easily deduced squares,
and then gradually work out along the edges of the known area.a It's not like sudoku at all.
<nod>
For my environment (Windows with MS Edge browser) the right- click to set a square does not work
properly - it does set the square, but also still displays the standard (MS Edge) right- click
context menu.
KS may apprec a bug report?
Yeah, I'll look for a place to do that.
moc.srehsabniarb@emtctanoc is (I think) exactly wrong.
How about this puzzle I've just invented:a (I'll call the Sequidoku puzzles)
<snip>
NOT MUCH FUN, but no different really from Surroundoku. :(
I have yet to discover a way to frame the one obvious rule in a way that gives me the solution.
You mean for my Sequidoku puzzle?
No. I meant for SurrounDoku.
For Surroundoku the equivalent rule would be
1.a If the game constraints are directly violated, if a square is coloured anything
aaaa but one specific colour, then you can mark the square with that colour.
I don't see how that moves us forward.
For example:
aa...aaa WWW
aa.0. -> WWW
aa...aaa WWW
(Making any of the W squares B would directly violate the constraint that the 0 square has 0 black
squares as neighbors.)
Sudoku's pretty shit too:
+---+---+---+
|953|8.6|124|
|162|435|8.9|
|48.|921|365|
+---+---+---+
|398|56.|412|
|624|198|53.|
|5.1|243|986|
+---+---+---+
|816|.54|293|
|235|619|.48|
|.49|382|651|
+---+---+---+
I guess the only way to check here is for you to post a position where you're stuck, and we'll see
if there are any "direct constraint" patterns that you've missed.
Works for me... if KS ever sees fit to restore the puzzle to his site. (I presume he's had some
issues.)
Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> posted:
On 27/11/2025 16:26, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 27/11/2025 04:14, Mike Terry wrote:
On 26/11/2025 23:34, Richard Heathfield wrote:
This looks new:My first thought is that they're just too easy.a In fact the ones I've attempted were "trivial" in
https://www.brainbashers.com/surroundokuhelp.asp
I can't find any reference to it elseWeb, so this one might be Kevin's invention.
the sense I explain below...
The smaller ones, yes. I hit my wall at 10x10 - I suspect there's a knack I have yet to acquire.
Any strategies so far? Here are the ones I've worked out so far:
WWW
W0W
WWW
...aaa WWW
.0. -> WWW
...aaa WWW
Yes, but the 0W key is unaccountably missing from my keyboard.
BBB
B9B
BBB
...aaa BBB
.9. -> BBB
...aaa BBB
etc.
typo?
|
|BB
|4B
+---
|BB
|6B
|BB
|BBB
|66B
|BBB
Oh yeah. I was halfway through an defence when I saw I'd typed that instead of...
|...aaa |BBW
|66. -> |BBW
|...aaa |BBW
...that.
I don't like my notation either, but don't have anything better in ASCII text.
Quite.
?4?
?7?
BBB
aa..a .4a ..
aa..a .7a ..a ->a ???a I don't see any definite squares we can fix... >>>> aaB.a B.a B.
a4b
c7d
efg
Out of the six squares
a4b
c7d
a maximum of 4 can be black, so the 7 needs to find 3 more black squares from somewhere else, and
efg are the only candidates.
Ah, right - that's valid. (I was misunderstanding the notation.) With my notation that would be:
.. .4 .. .. .4 ..
.. .7 .. -> .. .7 ..
.. .. .. B. B. B.
That's a genuine pattern beyond what the rules say directly! The puzzles I looked at did not
require such advanced logic to solve...
The overall feeling for the game is very like MineSweeper.a Start from easily deduced squares, and
then gradually work out along the edges of the known area.a It's not like sudoku at all.
<nod>
For my environment (Windows with MS Edge browser) the right-click to set a square does not work
properly - it does set the square, but also still displays the standard (MS Edge) right-click
context menu.
KS may apprec a bug report?
Yeah, I'll look for a place to do that.
Most serious criticism:a All the above patterns can be summarised as "apply forced squares", where
by forced squares I mean squares /directly/ implied by rules.a Akin to blocking an X.X row to make
XOX in noughts and crosses, or in Kevin's 3-In-A-Row puzzles - such patterns hardly need to be
listed as they're just "directly forced moves".a Such rules are just noting that the reader can
correctly read the rules.a All the puzzles I've attempted so far have been solvable simply from
repeatedly applying this one simple rule which is entirely obvious from the game rules.a As such,
the puzzles seems to be uninteresting!a Of course, maybe I've been unlucky in my choice of puzzles
- I've only done a handful.a I'll carry on for a few days to see if any non-trivial puzzles crop
up, but I'll soon stop if they're all like this.
That has not been my experience, but then I'm pretty sure I'm quite a bit denser than the average
puzzle solver.
I'm tempted to go further and suggest that if a puzzle can be solved by repeatably applying just
one obvious rule, then arguably it's not worthy of being called a puzzle.a It's on the same level
with WordGrid "puzzles" where you have to find each of a given list of words in a grid of letters
- is that really a puzzle?a I suppose you could make such "puzzles" more fun by making them a
timed competition - a race! (..but still not very puzzling..)
I don't like wordsearches either; when in hospital a while back and faced with them or nothing I did
indeed try to devise optimising strategies.
How about this puzzle I've just invented:a (I'll call the Sequidoku puzzles)
aaaa .a .a .a .a . 30a .a .
Rules:
1. replace each dot with a number
2. for any two adjacent numbers, the right hand number must be one more than the left number.
Here is one way to solve my "puzzle" :
aaaa .a .a .a .a . 30a .a .
aaaa .a .a .a .a . 30 31a .
aaaa .a .a .a . 29 30 31a .
aaaa .a .a . 28 29 30 31a .
aaaa .a . 27 28 29 30 31a .
aaaa .a . 27 28 29 30 31 32
aaaa . 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
aaa 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Solved!a Again by just one obvious rule, which is actually listed in the game rules.
NOT MUCH FUN, but no different really from Surroundoku. :(
I have yet to discover a way to frame the one obvious rule in a way that gives me the solution.
You mean for my Sequidoku puzzle? You get that when we have
30 .
as in the above puzzle, there's only one legal number the . can be? (31)
We could formally make this a pattern:
n . --> n n+1
Similarly
. n --> n-1 n
Perhaps we count that as 2 patterns? Fine, but they are both just directly applying the given game
constraints where clearly only one number is possible. Or we could make it a "procedural rule",
something like:
- For an empty square, if it has a filled in neighbour, then the constraints of
Sequidoku allow only one number for the square - mark the square with that number!
For Surroundoku the equivalent rule would be
1. If the game constraints are directly violated, if a square is coloured anything
but one specific colour, then you can mark the square with that colour.
For example:
... WWW
.0. -> WWW
... WWW
(Making any of the W squares B would directly violate the constraint that the 0 square has 0 black
squares as neighbors.)
More commonly, we have more colours filled in, but the principle is the same:
W. B. W. W. B. W.
B. B4 W. B. B4 W.
W. W6 .. -> W. W6 B.
The constraints say that the middle square marked B4 has 4 black neighbors. If the bottom right
square were marked W that would violate that constraint.
This kind of direct reasoning has been enough for me to solve all the puzzles I tried.
Kevin's "3-In-A-Row" puzzle is also in this class of "puzzles" which can all be solved with just
one single rule.a Actually, probably /two/ rules:
1. "block /direct/ violation of game constraints (XX. --> XXO etc.)
2. a simple but not-quite-so-obvious extension of rule 1.
That's certainly true for the smaller puzzles. I have not found it to be a scalable fault. I find
the 18x18s to be exponentially harder - still soluble, but by no means obvious.
I am convinced just my two "patterns" are sufficient. It's not unusual for me to "get stuck"
solving one of the puzzles, and I mechanically go through the puzzle trying to apply the patterns,
and conclude there are no places to apply them - I'm going to have to genuinely reason my way out of
this, maybe coming up with a new kind of pattern! (This happens frequently in most puzzle types,
and is what makes them fun!)
Then eventually I see that I'd just missed something, and my two rules /were/ sufficient after all.
Even if I've gone through the loop 4 times /really/ carefully, it will always be the case that I'm
just missing something. I'm convinced that Kevin's puzzle generator checks that the puzzle is
solvable by simply verifying that my two patterns are sufficient to solve the puzzle. In that
sense, I've worked out everything there is to work out about those puzzles, and if I solved 10000
more of them I would never have to think more than I've already thought about it. (I don't like
that...)
So Surroundoku is /even easier/ than 3-In-A-Row!a (It's like 3- In-A-Row solvable only with rule 1!)
Not my experience. I had several cracks at the 25x25 and gave up each time. >>>
I guess the only way to check here is for you to post a position where you're stuck, and we'll see
if there are any "direct constraint" patterns that you've missed. (Such missings wouldn't be any
patterns you've not thought about, just blind spots which we all get. Once I did a WordSearch
puzzle and was convinced a particular word wasn't in the grid, but then my friend looked and saw it
straight away - Doh!
Mike.
https://www.brainbashers.com/surroundokuhelp.asp
The link doesn't work ... or the page was modified.
Could someone briefly explain the rules?
Is it like 3-In-A-Row, Tik-tak-toe, or Minimalist- GO, or Othello?
The point is that the rule can (and is) used in solving /all/
sudokus, but it is not /sufficient/ for any worthy puzzle.-a It
may enable us to fill in a handful of squares then we're stuck -
further reasoning and other patterns will be required.-a It is
this variety that makes Sudoku puzzles enjoyable.
With Suroundoku it seems to me that the equivalent rule is [might
be?] /sufficient/ to solve all Suroundoku puzzles published on
BB.
You're not convinced, and now the puzzles have gone so we
won't be able to confirm either way!
On 28/11/2025 00:37, HenHanna@NewsGrouper wrote:
Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> posted:
On 27/11/2025 16:26, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 27/11/2025 04:14, Mike Terry wrote:
On 26/11/2025 23:34, Richard Heathfield wrote:
This looks new:My first thought is that they're just too easy.-a In fact the ones I've attempted were "trivial" in
https://www.brainbashers.com/surroundokuhelp.asp
I can't find any reference to it elseWeb, so this one might be Kevin's invention.
the sense I explain below...
The smaller ones, yes. I hit my wall at 10x10 - I suspect there's a knack I have yet to acquire.
Any strategies so far? Here are the ones I've worked out so far:
WWW
W0W
WWW
...-a-a-a WWW
.0. -> WWW
...-a-a-a WWW
Yes, but the 0W key is unaccountably missing from my keyboard.
BBB
B9B
BBB
...-a-a-a BBB
.9. -> BBB
...-a-a-a BBB
etc.
typo?
|
|BB
|4B
+---
|BB
|6B
|BB
|BBB
|66B
|BBB
Oh yeah. I was halfway through an defence when I saw I'd typed that instead of...
|...-a-a-a |BBW
|66. -> |BBW
|...-a-a-a |BBW
...that.
I don't like my notation either, but don't have anything better in ASCII text.
Quite.
?4?
?7?
BBB
-a-a..-a .4-a ..
-a-a..-a .7-a ..-a ->-a ???-a I don't see any definite squares we can fix...
-a-aB.-a B.-a B.
a4b
c7d
efg
Out of the six squares
a4b
c7d
a maximum of 4 can be black, so the 7 needs to find 3 more black squares from somewhere else, and
efg are the only candidates.
Ah, right - that's valid. (I was misunderstanding the notation.) With my notation that would be:
.. .4 .. .. .4 ..
.. .7 .. -> .. .7 ..
.. .. .. B. B. B.
That's a genuine pattern beyond what the rules say directly! The puzzles I looked at did not
require such advanced logic to solve...
The overall feeling for the game is very like MineSweeper.-a Start from easily deduced squares, and
then gradually work out along the edges of the known area.-a It's not like sudoku at all.
<nod>
For my environment (Windows with MS Edge browser) the right-click to set a square does not work
properly - it does set the square, but also still displays the standard (MS Edge) right-click
context menu.
KS may apprec a bug report?
Yeah, I'll look for a place to do that.
Most serious criticism:-a All the above patterns can be summarised as "apply forced squares", where
by forced squares I mean squares /directly/ implied by rules.-a Akin to blocking an X.X row to make
XOX in noughts and crosses, or in Kevin's 3-In-A-Row puzzles - such patterns hardly need to be
listed as they're just "directly forced moves".-a Such rules are just noting that the reader can
correctly read the rules.-a All the puzzles I've attempted so far have been solvable simply from
repeatedly applying this one simple rule which is entirely obvious from the game rules.-a As such,
the puzzles seems to be uninteresting!-a Of course, maybe I've been unlucky in my choice of puzzles
- I've only done a handful.-a I'll carry on for a few days to see if any non-trivial puzzles crop
up, but I'll soon stop if they're all like this.
That has not been my experience, but then I'm pretty sure I'm quite a bit denser than the average
puzzle solver.
I'm tempted to go further and suggest that if a puzzle can be solved by repeatably applying just
one obvious rule, then arguably it's not worthy of being called a puzzle.-a It's on the same level
with WordGrid "puzzles" where you have to find each of a given list of words in a grid of letters
- is that really a puzzle?-a I suppose you could make such "puzzles" more fun by making them a
timed competition - a race! (..but still not very puzzling..)
I don't like wordsearches either; when in hospital a while back and faced with them or nothing I did
indeed try to devise optimising strategies.
How about this puzzle I've just invented:-a (I'll call the Sequidoku puzzles)
-a-a-a-a .-a .-a .-a .-a . 30-a .-a .
Rules:
1. replace each dot with a number
2. for any two adjacent numbers, the right hand number must be one more than the left number.
Here is one way to solve my "puzzle" :
-a-a-a-a .-a .-a .-a .-a . 30-a .-a .
-a-a-a-a .-a .-a .-a .-a . 30 31-a .
-a-a-a-a .-a .-a .-a . 29 30 31-a .
-a-a-a-a .-a .-a . 28 29 30 31-a .
-a-a-a-a .-a . 27 28 29 30 31-a .
-a-a-a-a .-a . 27 28 29 30 31 32
-a-a-a-a . 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
-a-a-a 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Solved!-a Again by just one obvious rule, which is actually listed in the game rules.
NOT MUCH FUN, but no different really from Surroundoku. :(
I have yet to discover a way to frame the one obvious rule in a way that gives me the solution.
You mean for my Sequidoku puzzle? You get that when we have
30 .
as in the above puzzle, there's only one legal number the . can be? (31) >>
We could formally make this a pattern:
n . --> n n+1
Similarly
. n --> n-1 n
Perhaps we count that as 2 patterns? Fine, but they are both just directly applying the given game
constraints where clearly only one number is possible. Or we could make it a "procedural rule",
something like:
- For an empty square, if it has a filled in neighbour, then the constraints of
Sequidoku allow only one number for the square - mark the square with that number!
For Surroundoku the equivalent rule would be
1. If the game constraints are directly violated, if a square is coloured anything
but one specific colour, then you can mark the square with that colour.
For example:
... WWW
.0. -> WWW
... WWW
(Making any of the W squares B would directly violate the constraint that the 0 square has 0 black
squares as neighbors.)
More commonly, we have more colours filled in, but the principle is the same:
W. B. W. W. B. W.
B. B4 W. B. B4 W.
W. W6 .. -> W. W6 B.
The constraints say that the middle square marked B4 has 4 black neighbors. If the bottom right
square were marked W that would violate that constraint.
This kind of direct reasoning has been enough for me to solve all the puzzles I tried.
Kevin's "3-In-A-Row" puzzle is also in this class of "puzzles" which can all be solved with just
one single rule.-a Actually, probably /two/ rules:
1. "block /direct/ violation of game constraints (XX. --> XXO etc.)
2. a simple but not-quite-so-obvious extension of rule 1.
That's certainly true for the smaller puzzles. I have not found it to be a scalable fault. I find
the 18x18s to be exponentially harder - still soluble, but by no means obvious.
I am convinced just my two "patterns" are sufficient. It's not unusual for me to "get stuck"
solving one of the puzzles, and I mechanically go through the puzzle trying to apply the patterns,
and conclude there are no places to apply them - I'm going to have to genuinely reason my way out of
this, maybe coming up with a new kind of pattern! (This happens frequently in most puzzle types,
and is what makes them fun!)
Then eventually I see that I'd just missed something, and my two rules /were/ sufficient after all.
Even if I've gone through the loop 4 times /really/ carefully, it will always be the case that I'm
just missing something. I'm convinced that Kevin's puzzle generator checks that the puzzle is
solvable by simply verifying that my two patterns are sufficient to solve the puzzle. In that
sense, I've worked out everything there is to work out about those puzzles, and if I solved 10000
more of them I would never have to think more than I've already thought about it. (I don't like
that...)
So Surroundoku is /even easier/ than 3-In-A-Row!-a (It's like 3- In-A-Row solvable only with rule 1!)
Not my experience. I had several cracks at the 25x25 and gave up each time.
I guess the only way to check here is for you to post a position where you're stuck, and we'll see
if there are any "direct constraint" patterns that you've missed. (Such missings wouldn't be any
patterns you've not thought about, just blind spots which we all get. Once I did a WordSearch
puzzle and was convinced a particular word wasn't in the grid, but then my friend looked and saw it
straight away - Doh!
Mike.
https://www.brainbashers.com/surroundokuhelp.asp
The link doesn't work ... or the page was modified.
Could someone briefly explain the rules?
Is it like 3-In-A-Row, Tik-tak-toe, or Minimalist- GO, or Othello?
Kevin has removed the link. Perhaps it will come back later on.
There is a square grid of grey squares. Some of the squares contain a number.
The objective is to mark each square black or white, satisfying the game constraints:
1. If a square contains a number, that number must match the number of black
squares in the "neighbourhood" of that square.
2. Er, that's it I think.
For a given square, its "neighbourhood" consists of the square itself, and all the adjacent squares
either horizontally, vertically or diagonally. (Think: king's move in chess)
So an interior square has 9 neighbours, an edge square has 6, and a corner square has 4.
It's not like any of the games you list. More like MineSweeper, but instead of marking squares
safe/mine, you mark them black/white, and the constraints to follow are a bit different but in some
ways similar to minesweeper. [I think the key feature of the constraint (1) above, is it's
localised nature. That's in common with how MineSweeper works.]
Here's a sample puzzle on a 4x4 grid (using dots for empty squares)
4 . . .
. 5 2 .
. . 4 .
. 3 . .
and its solution
B B W W
B B W W
B W W W
W B B B
(When a square with a number is coloured black/white, its number is still visible in the square)
Mike.
This looks new:
https://www.brainbashers.com/surroundokuhelp.asp
I can't find any reference to it elseWeb, so this one might be Kevin's invention.
On 28/11/2025 02:07, Mike Terry wrote:
<snip>
The point is that the rule can (and is) used in solving /all/ sudokus, but it is not /sufficient/
for any worthy puzzle.a It may enable us to fill in a handful of squares then we're stuck -
further reasoning and other patterns will be required.a It is this variety that makes Sudoku
puzzles enjoyable.
We might describe further reasoning as second order deductions, like my 47 adjacency leading to
three free black squares. Would it be fair to say that a puzzle is satisfying to the Nth order,
where N is how far you have to chase the rule down the rabbit hole?
With Suroundoku it seems to me that the equivalent rule is [might be?] /sufficient/ to solve all
Suroundoku puzzles published on BB.
Well, it must be, because otherwise the puzzles are not soluble as published. But it might be that a
puzzler has to apply them cleverly (as in X-wing, XY-wing, remote pairs etc).
You're not convinced, and now the puzzles have gone so we won't be able to confirm either way!
A waiting game, perhaps?
I'm tempted to ask Kevin for an ETA, but in his position I wouldn't thank me for the nag.
Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> posted:
On 28/11/2025 00:37, HenHanna@NewsGrouper wrote:
Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> posted:
On 27/11/2025 16:26, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 27/11/2025 04:14, Mike Terry wrote:
On 26/11/2025 23:34, Richard Heathfield wrote:
This looks new:My first thought is that they're just too easy.a In fact the ones I've attempted were "trivial" in
https://www.brainbashers.com/surroundokuhelp.asp
I can't find any reference to it elseWeb, so this one might be Kevin's invention.
the sense I explain below...
The smaller ones, yes. I hit my wall at 10x10 - I suspect there's a knack I have yet to acquire.
Any strategies so far? Here are the ones I've worked out so far: >>>>>>>
WWW
W0W
WWW
...aaa WWW
.0. -> WWW
...aaa WWW
Yes, but the 0W key is unaccountably missing from my keyboard.
BBB
B9B
BBB
...aaa BBB
.9. -> BBB
...aaa BBB
etc.
typo?
|
|BB
|4B
+---
|BB
|6B
|BB
|BBB
|66B
|BBB
Oh yeah. I was halfway through an defence when I saw I'd typed that instead of...
|...aaa |BBW
|66. -> |BBW
|...aaa |BBW
...that.
I don't like my notation either, but don't have anything better in ASCII text.
Quite.
?4?
?7?
BBB
aa..a .4a ..
aa..a .7a ..a ->a ???a I don't see any definite squares we can fix... >>>>>> aaB.a B.a B.
a4b
c7d
efg
Out of the six squares
a4b
c7d
a maximum of 4 can be black, so the 7 needs to find 3 more black squares from somewhere else, and
efg are the only candidates.
Ah, right - that's valid. (I was misunderstanding the notation.) With my notation that would be:
.. .4 .. .. .4 ..
.. .7 .. -> .. .7 ..
.. .. .. B. B. B.
That's a genuine pattern beyond what the rules say directly! The puzzles I looked at did not
require such advanced logic to solve...
The overall feeling for the game is very like MineSweeper.a Start from easily deduced squares, and
then gradually work out along the edges of the known area.a It's not like sudoku at all.
<nod>
For my environment (Windows with MS Edge browser) the right-click to set a square does not work
properly - it does set the square, but also still displays the standard (MS Edge) right-click
context menu.
KS may apprec a bug report?
Yeah, I'll look for a place to do that.
Most serious criticism:a All the above patterns can be summarised as "apply forced squares", where
by forced squares I mean squares /directly/ implied by rules.a Akin to blocking an X.X row to make
XOX in noughts and crosses, or in Kevin's 3-In-A-Row puzzles - such patterns hardly need to be
listed as they're just "directly forced moves".a Such rules are just noting that the reader can
correctly read the rules.a All the puzzles I've attempted so far have been solvable simply from
repeatedly applying this one simple rule which is entirely obvious from the game rules.a As such,
the puzzles seems to be uninteresting!a Of course, maybe I've been unlucky in my choice of puzzles
- I've only done a handful.a I'll carry on for a few days to see if any non-trivial puzzles crop
up, but I'll soon stop if they're all like this.
That has not been my experience, but then I'm pretty sure I'm quite a bit denser than the average
puzzle solver.
I'm tempted to go further and suggest that if a puzzle can be solved by repeatably applying just
one obvious rule, then arguably it's not worthy of being called a puzzle.a It's on the same level
with WordGrid "puzzles" where you have to find each of a given list of words in a grid of letters
- is that really a puzzle?a I suppose you could make such "puzzles" more fun by making them a
timed competition - a race! (..but still not very puzzling..)
I don't like wordsearches either; when in hospital a while back and faced with them or nothing I did
indeed try to devise optimising strategies.
How about this puzzle I've just invented:a (I'll call the Sequidoku puzzles)
aaaa .a .a .a .a . 30a .a .
Rules:
1. replace each dot with a number
2. for any two adjacent numbers, the right hand number must be one more than the left number.
Here is one way to solve my "puzzle" :
aaaa .a .a .a .a . 30a .a .
aaaa .a .a .a .a . 30 31a .
aaaa .a .a .a . 29 30 31a .
aaaa .a .a . 28 29 30 31a .
aaaa .a . 27 28 29 30 31a .
aaaa .a . 27 28 29 30 31 32
aaaa . 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
aaa 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Solved!a Again by just one obvious rule, which is actually listed in the game rules.
NOT MUCH FUN, but no different really from Surroundoku. :(
I have yet to discover a way to frame the one obvious rule in a way that gives me the solution.
You mean for my Sequidoku puzzle? You get that when we have
30 .
as in the above puzzle, there's only one legal number the . can be? (31) >>>>
We could formally make this a pattern:
n . --> n n+1
Similarly
. n --> n-1 n
Perhaps we count that as 2 patterns? Fine, but they are both just directly applying the given game
constraints where clearly only one number is possible. Or we could make it a "procedural rule",
something like:
- For an empty square, if it has a filled in neighbour, then the constraints of
Sequidoku allow only one number for the square - mark the square with that number!
For Surroundoku the equivalent rule would be
1. If the game constraints are directly violated, if a square is coloured anything
but one specific colour, then you can mark the square with that colour.
For example:
... WWW
.0. -> WWW
... WWW
(Making any of the W squares B would directly violate the constraint that the 0 square has 0 black
squares as neighbors.)
More commonly, we have more colours filled in, but the principle is the same:
W. B. W. W. B. W.
B. B4 W. B. B4 W.
W. W6 .. -> W. W6 B.
The constraints say that the middle square marked B4 has 4 black neighbors. If the bottom right
square were marked W that would violate that constraint.
This kind of direct reasoning has been enough for me to solve all the puzzles I tried.
Kevin's "3-In-A-Row" puzzle is also in this class of "puzzles" which can all be solved with just
one single rule.a Actually, probably /two/ rules:
1. "block /direct/ violation of game constraints (XX. --> XXO etc.) >>>>>> 2. a simple but not-quite-so-obvious extension of rule 1.
That's certainly true for the smaller puzzles. I have not found it to be a scalable fault. I find
the 18x18s to be exponentially harder - still soluble, but by no means obvious.
I am convinced just my two "patterns" are sufficient. It's not unusual for me to "get stuck"
solving one of the puzzles, and I mechanically go through the puzzle trying to apply the patterns,
and conclude there are no places to apply them - I'm going to have to genuinely reason my way out of
this, maybe coming up with a new kind of pattern! (This happens frequently in most puzzle types,
and is what makes them fun!)
Then eventually I see that I'd just missed something, and my two rules /were/ sufficient after all.
Even if I've gone through the loop 4 times /really/ carefully, it will always be the case that I'm
just missing something. I'm convinced that Kevin's puzzle generator checks that the puzzle is
solvable by simply verifying that my two patterns are sufficient to solve the puzzle. In that
sense, I've worked out everything there is to work out about those puzzles, and if I solved 10000
more of them I would never have to think more than I've already thought about it. (I don't like
that...)
So Surroundoku is /even easier/ than 3-In-A-Row!a (It's like 3- In-A-Row solvable only with rule 1!)
Not my experience. I had several cracks at the 25x25 and gave up each time.
I guess the only way to check here is for you to post a position where you're stuck, and we'll see
if there are any "direct constraint" patterns that you've missed. (Such missings wouldn't be any
patterns you've not thought about, just blind spots which we all get. Once I did a WordSearch
puzzle and was convinced a particular word wasn't in the grid, but then my friend looked and saw it
straight away - Doh!
Mike.
https://www.brainbashers.com/surroundokuhelp.asp
The link doesn't work ... or the page was modified.
Could someone briefly explain the rules?
Is it like 3-In-A-Row, Tik-tak-toe, or Minimalist- GO, or Othello?
Kevin has removed the link. Perhaps it will come back later on.
There is a square grid of grey squares. Some of the squares contain a number.
The objective is to mark each square black or white, satisfying the game constraints:
1. If a square contains a number, that number must match the number of black
squares in the "neighbourhood" of that square.
2. Er, that's it I think.
For a given square, its "neighbourhood" consists of the square itself, and all the adjacent squares
either horizontally, vertically or diagonally. (Think: king's move in chess)
So an interior square has 9 neighbours, an edge square has 6, and a corner square has 4.
It's not like any of the games you list. More like MineSweeper, but instead of marking squares
safe/mine, you mark them black/white, and the constraints to follow are a bit different but in some
ways similar to minesweeper. [I think the key feature of the constraint (1) above, is it's
localised nature. That's in common with how MineSweeper works.]
Here's a sample puzzle on a 4x4 grid (using dots for empty squares)
4 . . .
. 5 2 .
. . 4 .
. 3 . .
and its solution
B B W W
B B W W
B W W W
W B B B
(When a square with a number is coloured black/white, its number is still visible in the square)
Mike.
Thank you... that's somewhat like Kakkuro (kakuro).
or more like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Up_(puzzle)
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 19:05:27 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
5 files (8,203K bytes) |
| Messages: | 184,913 |
| Posted today: | 1 |