Log in

29 July 2010 @ 11:11 pm
Friday Puzzle #60 - (h) ORu KakurOh!  
In recent years the USPC has had many good kakuro variations. I still remember the feeling of "I wish I'd done that" when I first saw the KakurOh in 2008. I had played with lots of tile variants for Mutant Sudoku and for the Mystery Hunt with skyscrapers but had yet to catch up to using the concept in a kakuro variant. The large squares in the KakurOh were a cool gimmick and ended up forming a really nice puzzle.

Unfortunately 2009 did not have a new kakuro variation (maybe people were still recovering from the eight puzzles thedan and I sprang at the 2009 Mystery Hunt) but here's hoping 2010 brings more fun.

Instructions: This puzzle is a combination of the 2007 and 2008 Kakuro gimmicks on the USPC. Each entry uses one of two possible choices for the sum of the numbers in that entry. Some large cells (in light gray) belong to multiple rows and columns but contain just a single number. The puzzle otherwise follows standard kakuro rules (enter a single digit from 1-9 in each cell, no digits repeat in an entry).

I'd rate this on the X-treme end of things, to match the X theme, but it is not impossible by any means.

(Anonymous) on July 30th, 2010 04:21 pm (UTC)

Very nice indeed. Certainly hard, but enough traction to make solving it enjoyable. Ballpoint pen throughout.

David McNeill.
(Anonymous) on July 30th, 2010 10:51 pm (UTC)
I had a good chuckle at one of the vertical clues. I solved in paint (which only has 3 degrees of undoing) which I guess is the equivalent of David's ballpoint pen - and I even managing to fix a silly permutation at the end (different colours to paint over mistakes helped here!) I also agree that the solving flow was hard but not to the point of being disjointed. Nicely done!

jrivet on July 31st, 2010 04:12 am (UTC)
Is that eight-square 35 intended in the 7th column? Seems wrong somehow, to include an impossible clue.
motrismotris on July 31st, 2010 04:17 am (UTC)
I think I've seen a similar impossible value used as a break-in in some section of another Either/Or Kakuro (last year's WPC Weakest Link puzzle specifically). Given the challenge of counting small and big squares, its not as immediately obvious here when you first spot it, but works in much the same way.

Edited at 2010-07-31 04:19 am (UTC)
jrivet on July 31st, 2010 05:12 am (UTC)
It is immediately obvious here only because it is opposite a 44, which means one of the two clues has to be impossible no matter how many squares there are in between them.
motrismotris on July 31st, 2010 05:25 am (UTC)
Well, the competition was a 16/38 that we missed for awhile. I still blame jet-lag.
(Anonymous) on August 2nd, 2010 12:46 pm (UTC)
If you dislike impossible clues (I do), you could replace the 35 by 37 - since the bottom left corner can be solved more or less on its own (including an 8 directly above that 35), that wouldn't change anything.

zundevilzundevil on July 31st, 2010 09:00 pm (UTC)
Nice work, per usual. (Hang on while I make a TAoP comment template)

I bit the bullet and printed it out as I kept screwing up (I think) the {20/21} in the Pennsylvania region. It eventually worked out, and I came across some neat tricks...

1. The {11/14} and {9/7} in the lower right ended up working out based on there being only one number that could go in the shared big-cell. This is more of a facet of the puzzle-type itself, but since this type is new it felt clever.

2. I had a (56) pair in the 44 that led to a (56) pair in the {36/39} that forced it to be 36 which meant the (79) cell had to be a 7. If we were intended to come across that, that's a masterstroke.

Anyhow, I'll withhold my highest praise until you work sheep/wolves into a mutant Kakuro. This was very good nonetheless.
(Anonymous) on July 31st, 2010 11:17 pm (UTC)
When i first time see this kakuro variation in USPC, i was impressed by its appearance and idea. As i remember when i was making, i worked a lot on WPC ORu KakuRo. But end of this, i was so happy:) Because it was looking so nice! Maybe i made a little bit hard:)

Firstly i like your's. I think it was not hard. Different areas of the puzzle give some exact digits, and then it is enjoyable to place digits!