The LA Times added a daily Sudoku puzzle to the paper recently. I had heard about its addictive qualities, but had to check it out for myself. Actually, the game isn't very hard: you fill in a 9 x 9 grid so that each line, column, and 3 x 3 section has each number 1-9. You deduce which numbers go in which square by excluding all other possibilities (much like when one plays Minesweeper, one deduces which blocks are mines by the adjacent numerical indicators).
Really there are only 3 techniques. The first is basic exclusion: all squares in a 3 x 3 section except one have, say, the number 7 adjacent to them, so that square must be 7. Games can get slightly more interesting when this doesn't work, and one had to deduce the position of a square knowing only which row a number is in on an adjacent 3 x 3. The games are rated from Gentle to Diabolical, although I seem to have an easier time with the Diabolical ones than I do with the Gentle ones.
The game is leaps and bounds above a Crossword, which inevitably requires the two things I hate: obscure trivia and the ability to guess which abbreviation the puzzle needs (a 3 letter word for the state Harrisburg is the capital of...PEN? PNA? PSA? aaaaaaargh!) Sudoku is a bit short though, with most puzzles being solvable in 20 minutes or so.
2 comments
Julianna
7/28/2005 at 6:41 PM (UTC -5) Link to this comment
YEAH! It's easy for genuises like you and Reuben! I'm a moron and can't do crosswords or
Sudoku.
Sigh.
I hope you are well.
Jessica
7/29/2005 at 7:12 AM (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I absolutely suck at Sudoku. I've finished, like, one, but given up on others. I suspect I could eventually finish them, but I stare and stare and can't figure out anymore numbers that *must* go somewhere, and my brain shuts down so I stop. Stupid numbers.
I'm a little better at crosswords, though, because I know a lot of random stuff--but not really enough old people stuff, since crosswords are mostly for people my parents' age and up.