zotmeister | Puzzle 51: Totally Rooked

"I do not have too much interest in chess as a game..." - Sherlock Holmes, The Chess Mysteries of Sherlock Holmes I definitely feel like one of the greatest chunks of unfinished business I left behind in the first fifty puzzles was that I never made a full one of these that was more than just an Akari. There I was, introducing a new puzzle type, and apart from a five-by-five sample, I never actually MADE one. Hell, Grant made a better one before I did... with Stratego pieces of all things... [sigh] Well, consider that issue remedied. AND HOW. I made this one a ballbuster. I even removed an unnecessary given during testsolving. See Puzzle 41 for instructions. You're going to need all of them this time: That's right, unlimited queens as well as rooks, and one pesky knight to gunk up the works. You're going to have to discover some new tactics for this one, as well as learn which old ones still apply... The astute may have noticed that my digits now look different. Due to overwhelming apathy, I have gone ahead and done what I was originally planning: now my characters are seven-by-seven pixels! Basically, I just added digits to the custom font I created for my letter-based puzzles (which used 7x7 all along) and have started using them instead. The old 5x5s may yet make future appearances in the form of two-digit numbers for some puzzles. If you have any comments regarding the change, feel free to make them, but honestly, where were they last week? Huh? HUH? Oh, forget it. (The astuter may have noticed I broke out the S2 and finally got my journal subtitle to actually SHOW on my journal, among other things...) Just a reminder: I am no longer soliciting emailed solutions nor offering prizes for them. I do still encourage comments - public or private - regarding anything I post to this journal, puzzles or otherwise. - ZM

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Has anyone solved this, yet? I ran into the same contradiction twice, which from experience means I made some stupid mistake, but I'd like to know it's solvable before trying again.

-Rob

I tested it right before I uploaded it, and I just doublechecked my solution for legality - it all seems to check out. You can email me what you're encountering and I'll set whichever of us is erring straight. - ZM

I've solved it so I can vouch for the existance of a solution. I'm pretty sure the solution is unique as I arrived at the solution without guessing, but that doesn't mean that I didn't make an unfounded "logical" step along the way (though the fact that I arrived at any solution makes that unlikely).

It's a neat puzzle. I kept messing up the diagonal attacks of the queens, or I would have solved it more quickly... It's hard to get used to the multiople lighting schemes in an Atari puzzle.

I used the fact that there was only 1 knight extensively. I'd like to see an instance of this puzzle with more (or even unlimited) knights. With, say, 3 or 4 knights, you'd at least have to do some work to place a couple of knights before several useful theorems become applicable. By the same token, it would be cool to see some bishops mixed in as well.

Rob sent me es logical process, and I found a false assumption, so it looks like we're squared away.

I'm glad you like it. It was definitely an interesting composition for me, having to come up with new theorems. For example, I quickly learned the only way to force a queen to appear (as opposed to a rook in the same cell) is to force a cell diagonally from it that can't be attacked any other way (or covered itself), and trying to find ways to do just that - and in the right places - was a lot of fun, actually.

As much as I like to make puzzles with some exception to be dealt with, I have to deal with that exception during construction, every step of the way, until I force its resolution, something that due to its very nature I usually try to put off as long as possible. There are limits to how crazy I can let the exception get as a direct result. Suffice it to say I used the one-knight-only fact extensively in making the puzzle! With that said, however, I definitely feel I've only barely scratched the surface here, and as I learn new techniques I may well get more brazen. - ZM

Rule 3 from the original post:
3) Only and all the chess pieces listed below the grid must be used for this task, in the exact quantities given. Often, some quantity will not be known in advance, but don't worry - to obey all the rest of the rules, the quantity will be forced, and the puzzle will still have a unique solution. For example, the sample puzzle must have exactly one queen and exactly one knight, and no other pieces but rooks. One cannot use pawns, bishops, kings, amazons, grasshoppers, marshalls, cardinals, dragons, cannons, or any other kind of piece. As for the rooks, I haven't given how many will be needed - could be a dozen, could be zero - but as the solution shows, four works, and its the only value that does.

The first sentence suggests that, for this puzzle, all of the piece types (knight, queen, and rook) must be used, but the last sentence suggests that zero queens or zero rooks might also be permissible.

It's logically sound, or at least as logically sound as the concept of using all of a zero quantity, but yeah, that could be phrased better. I'll get right on that. - ZM

That should pass muster now. - ZM

Yes, it does look better now.

I've solved it, by the way. I'm highly impressed.

Thanks. Like what I did with the '3's? ;) - ZM

"Hey, that wasn't too bad. In fact, I didn't even need to use that one...

Oh, goddammit."

Turned out to be an issue of not marking all the diagonals from a queen, so it didn't take long from there, luckily.

In response to some of your comments on queens, I wonder how fun a large-ish puzzle that offers unlimited queens and, say, 10 rooks would be. It would require ingenious construction to be any good though, I would think.

Puzzle 51: Totally Rooked

"I do not have too much interest in chess as a game..."

- Sherlock Holmes, The Chess Mysteries of Sherlock Holmes

contradiction?

Re: contradiction?

Re: contradiction?

Re: contradiction?

Quick rules question

Re: Quick rules question

Re: Quick rules question

Re: Quick rules question

Re: Quick rules question

no subject