Well, I just finished solving the puzzle again for a final check...and all is ok.
But - and wouldn't you know it! - of course I spotted a further improvement opportunity and have edited the puzzle again. The change mainly affects the class-number component and increases the difficulty level of its solution, but at the same time it fixes a clue that was a bit unsatisfactory but for which I hadn't been able to find a better alternative until now.
Latest revision:
]]>
I'd wondered if you were still around and would pick up this post. It's been a while!
You really cooked up a monster idea with this one, that's for sure. I've been meaning to tackle this for ages, but the puzzle is so huge and complex that it was rather daunting to try and implement any changes to it.
I've solved this revision a couple of times from scratch just to make sure it all worked, and have kept a record of the solution reasoning. That record came in very handy during the editing process!
]]>I've just finished re-revising this old puzzle, as I wasn't totally happy with the last version. With this one I am, so here it is.
Major improvements:
1. Increased difficulty.
2. Trickier class-number solving.
3. Final solution is now at the end of the puzzle...which may differ depending on the solution strategy (but probably not).
Please let me know what you think of it.
Enjoy!
]]>Phronister, yes, the most recent version does allow for a slightly premature solution. I'm gonna stick with the one before that for now. I'm updating the OP so that it shows that one (from post 44)
]]>Just out of curiosity, which version did you use? ie, from which of the posts on this thread.
You've probably noticed from all the posts here that the puzzle is still in a state of refinement, and we haven't quite got there yet with a final version. Hopefully the version you solved was one from which pRo9aMeR (the OP and composer) and I had ironed out most of the problems.
Did you notice any problems (eg, ambiguities) with the one you did?
Thanks for your feedback...it's nice nice to actually hear that someone has tried the puzzle!
Btw, would you like to post your solution? If so, please use the 'hide' box.
]]>I discovered the shortcut while trying to see how far I could go without a certain clue in case I could alter it to improve the puzzle.
I'll check the version in post #44 to see if the problem occurs there too.
Making changes is fraught with danger!
EDIT: I think I've just found a fix for that loophole, and also a superfluous clue related to the fix. I'll check it all out, but I'm busy with something else until tomorrow.
]]>That devious thought of mine didn't quite work out as I'd hoped, but I was able to use some of it to make a few alterations that I think add more variety and difficulty.
I've checked the puzzle from scratch and it seems to be ok.
Please check it too, and let me know what you think.
]]>
Of course, if it appears that my changes will work, I'll have to test them by solving the puzzle from scratch (again!) and ask you to do the same...again!
I'll report back soon(ish)...
]]>And thank you phronister for helping make this an awesome Einstein puzzle!
]]>The puzzle is excellent as it is, I reckon, with a good variety of conundrums so that you need to use several different solving strategies throughout the puzzle.
At various times during my revisions I've tried dropping a clue that I thought might be superfluous, only to be blocked by an unforeseen impasse.
Bob usually does these logic puzzles but he hasn't said yet that he's solved it, so maybe he's waiting for us to settle on the final version.
]]>I guess I'm fine with this version. I've solved this so many times, it doesn't seem that hard anymore!
]]>