Mark too! On the rare occasion that I spot something that they don't spot for ages, I get frustrated, and then they put the cursor right on the cell, and I'm going "at last they've spotted it!" and then they totally ignore the cell... 😆
It happens sooo often! Or him saying "Is it somewhere here?" me excitedly going "Yes!" and then him getting discouraged, not knowing what the trick forward is and going completely elsewhere 😆
@@KradlumExactly! I’ve had a bit of a marathon today and I think there has been at least one per video. It’s especially humorous when they wiggle the cursor on the cell, while pondering what they could possibly be missing.
It’s funny how the video is long just because it’s mostly Simon explaining every single logic ever and it’s just rather one long straight journey throughout and no real hardcore stuck instead. A great solve and an even greater appreciation for KNT here and by the way, this is just only one of his fine works out there x) (Also poor Simon at 44:00 didn’t notice the 3 gray cells sequence from there)
Thanks for this comment otherwise I probably wouldn't have attempted the puzzle. I typically only watch and don't try to solve videos over 1 hour assuming they'll be a very long solve that would take days to finish, but this was definitely approachable in a more limited time and definitely enjoyable!
This was a fun one. My parents were visiting and I usually put a CtC video on if there is nothing anyone else wants on in the evening. For this one, my dad couldn’t understand the various steps Simon was taking, so I’d explain. By the end we were spotting the next moves and talking through where we thought it would go. He said it would try it from scratch the next day as he would have forgot it all!
WOW. I didn't have a clue how to get started on this so let the video play ... when it got to around the 25 minute mark, I realised I was seeing a couple of things that Simon wasn't (yet) so gave it a go from that point, and completed it in a further 80 minutes from there (which by my maths is about the same time as Simon took!). My reaction on finding which 6 was shaded was very similar to Simon's 🤣 KNT, take a 🎀, that was insanely good.
I had literally no idea what was going on most of the time and yet it was delightful to watch. Such patient explanations of all of the logic. And so many happy smiles as he says, "wasn't expecting that". This is the true charm of the channel. Two nice, clever Brits having fun doing battle with a clever constructor.
That was exquisite. Beautiful logical deductions from start to finish. Not that I don't enjoy puzzles where the primary difficulty is a single monstrous break-in; but the small, constant series of simple jumps is this puzzle was almost zen.
I love around 1:19:00 where Simon is thinking on which 7 he should connect. There is one in an adjacent cell to his current end of the loop that has to connect to a 5 or 7. The other is across the board in a section that could not get two loop ends after the logic he just thought through immediately proceeding considering the 7s. But he has been so scarred by the puzzle subverting his expectations, he almost believes the second one is likely.
You could nearly add another rule. "The path will never take the most straight forward route you would expect, and will almost certainly have rinky dinks"...
Had a hard time getting started with this one, but a lot of fun once I got going. Kept wanting to count loop ends in isolated regions but realizing that they could merge via small loops. Lovely puzzle! Got it in 05:00:34 which I'm pretty happy with.
I was deeply confused by this puzzle, so I came back to this video seeking clarification - and found it! The rules as shown on this puzzle include the line "A digit not visited by the loop is unshaded and indicates the number of unshaded cells “seen” in all four directions from the cell containing the digit, including itself (where shaded cells block vision)". The rules on Sudokupad do not include that parenthetical at the end, and without it you run into a contradiction almost immediately.
Please update the rules to clarify that the loop can't travel diagonally, I was stuck for an hour before I relented and watched the solve and was blown away that wasn't in the rules but just assumed to be true.
For the checker, you could have done bitwise-like operations, for example 1 for unshaded non-loop, 2 for unshaded loop, 3 for shaded non-loop, 4 for shaded loop.
I finished in 316 minutes. This was a gauntlet of a puzzle. It seems like these puzzles are my kryptonite. There aren't necessarily difficult, but the huge grid size seems to overwhelm my brain and I tend to make very slow progress. I suppose it is because I tend to focus on minor details of the puzzle, completely missing the bigger picture that would speed up my solve. I agree heavily with StephenR's comment from lmd, because that is exactly how I felt. I was convinced several times that I had to have broken the puzzle, but it was intended, which is an incredible feeling. This puzzle did help me in that aspect. Sometimes when I'm doing a puzzle and see something that looks like it is broken, my brain panics and tries to rewind to find the mistake instead of trusting my logic. This puzzle helped me to trust the process, so-to-speak. It was insane how far apart some of those digits were and how they were able to connect without interference. That is some incredible setting. I took my time on this puzzle, but I believe that I made zero mistakes, so that's pretty cool. My brain hurts now. Great Puzzle!
I'm just at 44:35 where he asks "if anything is wrong with this?". Yes. Three greys on the loop! Came to comment, but saw your comment first. Edit: He finds it eventually, at around 1:02:45.
Lol thanks for reading out my comment and glad you had some idea of what I experienced. I’d forgotten how clever this puzzle was and quite how many deductions have to be made even if no single one is horrible.
Brilliant is an understatement... first I misread the rules to think that 3 sequentially in a row/column (un)shaded on the loop is prohibited rather than 3 in a sequence (taking turns into consideration), but including that finished in 85min. Nice Sunday morning activity :)
And I somehow misread the rules to say that more than three in a row along the loop is prohibited, and stared forever for how I could possibly proceed. I had to take a peek at the video to be set straight. And another to help me over a bump on the road. And another. And another. In short, I found it fiendishly difficult to keep all the rules in mind and picking the right one at each point, but having at long last completed it in 161:14, I have to admit that it is entirely fair - provided you can find the right question to ask. And Simon has an impressive knack for doing exactly that!
Thanks for these wonderful non-sudoku puzzles, I absolutely love them! After watching this I thought you can put the numbers on the line path to the next number and continue on, so the grid will be filled from numbers 1-9 along the solve path until the 9's go back to the 1 for the checker? Just a thought.
Spent 70 minutes on the puzzle being hardstuck because I confused which cells were supposed to be "cave" and which were "wall". These rules were hell to get right
Around 1:38:00, you could demonstrate that is the 1 and 2 ends do not connect directly, they would have to take both intersection, effectively isolating the 7 and 8 ends. That may have been a couple of minutes faster. That said, pfffuuuiitt! what a puzzle!
"Well, presumably we use this, do we...? To start....?" Well, I don't know where *you're* starting, Simon, but I started about five minutes ago with the realisation that there's only one 1 in the grid and the 2 in the lower righthand corner MUST be on the loop, since there is simply no universe in which it only sees 2 unshaded cells without breaking the puzzle. For starters, the loop is *definitely* not visiting the lower righthand 3 if it isn't visiting the 2 immediately to its upper left, leaving that 3 unshaded. But it couldn't possibly connect to the rest of the unshaded area with the 2 only seeing itselfand one other unshaded cell. So unless we want to break the puzzle *immediately,* we avtually already know the first two points (and their order) that the loop must pass through - which in turn allows us to do some shading 22:18: "Now do we know the colour of this?" I sure hope we do. The 3 isn't on the loop , so it can only see itself and two more cells. If the one to its left were green (aka visible), then the two to the left of *that* would automatically be visible as well, bringing the total of visible cells from that 3 to four, which is obviously bullshit. So how could that cell be green? Answer: not at all. The two cells (besides itself) that the green 3 sees must be the two above it
1:19:23 You can rule out that 7, because where’s it going to go? Even when you put the line straight through horizontally, it’s straight into a dead-end, because all it does is force where the 6 line connects to its way out
Thanks, I still don't get a correct solution check. I don't know where I went wrong, as I don't see any difference between mine and Simon's grid, but now I at least know that the solution check should be in order.
This might be later in the video if im right, but i think simon may have missed an option for the bottom row early in the video. He was working off of the logic that the two lines in the bottom rows could not connect because it would connect a 2 and a 4. This made sense until the bottom line encountered a 3, at which point it no longer made sense to use the logic from earlier. There might be some other logic that precludes it, but i don't think that was considered. This puzzle is awesome to watch nonetheless!
You're right. But I don't think he did any progression based on the logic that those loop ends couldn't meet, after they encounter a 3. They did not connect for other reasons.
If you're talking about the part around minute 30:00, I think that when he says he has to keep the bottom two lines apart, "until the line crosses a 3" is implied. As soon as the line does go through the 3, he still has to keep them apart because we then know that the other line has to cross the 1 next.
@@katiekawaiidoes it? The loose end in row 14 either goes to 3 or 1, but the loose end in row 13 connects to the loose end in row 11, which then has to go to a 4. The problem with the bottom two lines connecting is the line going 2-4, but if it hits a 3 before then it should be fine, surely?
at 24:00, why couldn't the loop go up to the right diagonally into that green above the green three? why did it have to go left? I didn't see anything in the rules saying the loop had to pass orthogonally. Edit: it seems that's just an inherent rule, I wish it was called out explicitly because it was really hard to progress not knowing if you could only move the loop orthogonally.
Interestingly, if you pause the video at 00:50 and read through the comments from Logic Masters Germany that Simon had copied, you will see a comment from KNT replying to someone else, and saying the loop cannot travel diagonally. But yes, generally, I think loops always travel orthogonally unless otherwise specified.
1:44:22 -Simon's current solve r1c9 cell should read 7, not the 6 that's premade in the puzzle. (but I think r4c9 should be grey to make the 6 correct)- Good solve Simon!
@@flarklooney Easily done. Especially when the count in both row and column is low. You can instantly see three cells horizontally, without even counting, and four vertically. "Well that's clearly 7 in total". I've done it myself.
I feel like you could've just made all cave cells one number and all wall cells a different number for the check at the end, since you can't finish the shading until the loop is finished and correct
Hello puzzle friends, looking for some clarifications on my assumptions before I start on this one: The loop must visit all intersections, correct? And I am not allowed to put in additional digits, correct?
@@TheArbieoAlthough if you want to check your progress against the answer check, you may want to put some 1s on loop corners and 2s on loop straight sections.
After 253 minutes, 2/3 of the grid colored, all shaded digits identified, only for 6 and 7 the lines missing (with two long and several short pieces of line), I hit a dead end - the 6 only could be connected by having 3 unshaded cells in a row (or breaking the cave rules). I'm pausing for now, then at a later day will decide to either roll back until I find my mistake, or watch Simon do it correctly (or show me my mistake, so I can continue from there).
I decided to reset and try again. After ~ 90 minutes, I again hit the same (or at least a similar) dead end. Fortunately this time I didn't give up, and after quite a while figured out that r14 c3+c4 can both be shaded, which solved this problem. From there I could continue, it took then 185:44 to find the full solution (including filling the 1s and 2s - it was not quite clear to me that the crossings also needed to be filled). Solve counter 912.
Trying to do shading and a loop at the same time was a bit too much for me, I couldn't separate the patterns from each other. I reread the rules 100 times at each attempt, but gave up in the end.
31.50 the answer is connect it trough the 3 clue, then down. One segment goes to the 2, the other to the 4. He got confused in trying to avoid connecting 4 and 2, but forgot to update this logic if you use a 3 along the way.
Just occasionally I think I see how a setter went about setting one of the many incredible puzzles featured on CtC. That never happens with a KNT puzzle. Just how?! 😂 I managed to solve it. It only took me three hours twenty minutes (with a night's sleep in the middle).
I really dislike the use of 'shaded' and 'unshaded' in puzzle rules. Especially when there's different rules applying to each group. The words are too similar, and it gets very hard to correctly parse the rules. It would be much easier if the rules simply said 'red' and 'green' (or any two colors really). Those words are much more easily assigned to something my brain can visualize than shaded and unshaded.
Just part of UA-cam's game you have to play. So long as the content of the video actually matches the title, it's not the worst thing in the world, I guess. Probably wouldn't get many views if you called it "Cave Stations by KNT" or "CtC Video No. 5361".
@@MisterM2402 You absolutely don't have to play that game. A channel don't have to do anything imaginable to attract whatever views they can get - if that wad the goal of this channel, don't make a channel about sudokus at all. You cultivate the audience that you create content for. By creating clickbait you cultivate a worse community, which I think is much worse than a smaller community. I hate, hate, hate it with a passion.
@@theWebWizrd If no one watches your videos, how do you cultivate an audience? Do you think CtC would have 600k subs if every video was titled "Here is another Sudoku puzzle"? You need to get people to choose your video out of all the other options that are presented to them, and many people don't realise how fascinating Sudoku can be so they wouldn't click otherwise. Veritasium has an interesting video on this called "Clickbait is Unreasonably Effective" that discusses the different types. Say you ran this channel, what title would you personally give this video that would attract new viewers who haven't seen CtC or don't know what a cave puzzle is?
If the title is a lie then yes it’s demeaning. The title however did not lie. Unless you think that it wasn’t brilliant however that’s more so an opinion about the puzzle rather than the video.
The ability of Simon to rest the mouse cursor exactly on the cell that would give a breakthrough and look somewhere else is amazing.
Mark too! On the rare occasion that I spot something that they don't spot for ages, I get frustrated, and then they put the cursor right on the cell, and I'm going "at last they've spotted it!" and then they totally ignore the cell... 😆
It happens sooo often! Or him saying "Is it somewhere here?" me excitedly going "Yes!" and then him getting discouraged, not knowing what the trick forward is and going completely elsewhere 😆
@@KradlumExactly! I’ve had a bit of a marathon today and I think there has been at least one per video. It’s especially humorous when they wiggle the cursor on the cell, while pondering what they could possibly be missing.
I love how cracking the cryptic is literally the ONLY channel that UA-cam gives notifications for on time for me, they have good taste
It’s funny how the video is long just because it’s mostly Simon explaining every single logic ever and it’s just rather one long straight journey throughout and no real hardcore stuck instead. A great solve and an even greater appreciation for KNT here and by the way, this is just only one of his fine works out there x)
(Also poor Simon at 44:00 didn’t notice the 3 gray cells sequence from there)
Tbf, 1:02:20 kind of validated the thing then hehe
Thanks for this comment otherwise I probably wouldn't have attempted the puzzle. I typically only watch and don't try to solve videos over 1 hour assuming they'll be a very long solve that would take days to finish, but this was definitely approachable in a more limited time and definitely enjoyable!
This was a fun one. My parents were visiting and I usually put a CtC video on if there is nothing anyone else wants on in the evening. For this one, my dad couldn’t understand the various steps Simon was taking, so I’d explain. By the end we were spotting the next moves and talking through where we thought it would go. He said it would try it from scratch the next day as he would have forgot it all!
Pencil puzzle Saturdays is the best invention since the potato peeler!!
WOW. I didn't have a clue how to get started on this so let the video play ... when it got to around the 25 minute mark, I realised I was seeing a couple of things that Simon wasn't (yet) so gave it a go from that point, and completed it in a further 80 minutes from there (which by my maths is about the same time as Simon took!). My reaction on finding which 6 was shaded was very similar to Simon's 🤣
KNT, take a 🎀, that was insanely good.
I love how excited Simon gets solving a difficult puzzle!
One of the most ludicrous puzzles I've ever seen on the channel. How does anyone even come up with that?!?
I had literally no idea what was going on most of the time and yet it was delightful to watch. Such patient explanations of all of the logic. And so many happy smiles as he says, "wasn't expecting that".
This is the true charm of the channel. Two nice, clever Brits having fun doing battle with a clever constructor.
LOVED this one. For me, it has that rare quality of being challenging rather than hard. It is very challenging, for sure, but not frustratingly so.
That was exquisite. Beautiful logical deductions from start to finish. Not that I don't enjoy puzzles where the primary difficulty is a single monstrous break-in; but the small, constant series of simple jumps is this puzzle was almost zen.
First time realizing that KNT should be spelled instead of reading it like an aussie
First time realising that KNT should be pronounced like an Aussie 😂
I love around 1:19:00 where Simon is thinking on which 7 he should connect.
There is one in an adjacent cell to his current end of the loop that has to connect to a 5 or 7. The other is across the board in a section that could not get two loop ends after the logic he just thought through immediately proceeding considering the 7s.
But he has been so scarred by the puzzle subverting his expectations, he almost believes the second one is likely.
Isn't his logic wrong then? because there could have been another loop end in that area he was talking about if it went straight through the 7
You could nearly add another rule.
"The path will never take the most straight forward route you would expect, and will almost certainly have rinky dinks"...
I loved watching this puzzle! It took me a few days to watch but I'm sad it's over, like a good Netflix series. Pls do more of these puzzles 😊
This is my favorite puzzle I've ever tried.
I can’t tell you how much I enjoy these pencil puzzles. Thank you for a lovely solve Simon!!!!
Absolutely brilliant is correct. And what a delightful solve from Simon.
Had a hard time getting started with this one, but a lot of fun once I got going. Kept wanting to count loop ends in isolated regions but realizing that they could merge via small loops. Lovely puzzle! Got it in 05:00:34 which I'm pretty happy with.
I was deeply confused by this puzzle, so I came back to this video seeking clarification - and found it! The rules as shown on this puzzle include the line "A digit not visited by the loop is unshaded and indicates the number of unshaded cells “seen” in all four directions from the cell containing the digit, including itself (where shaded cells block vision)". The rules on Sudokupad do not include that parenthetical at the end, and without it you run into a contradiction almost immediately.
Thank you! I was wondering what the definition of 'seen' was, but this clears that ambiguity.
Did I understand the rules: No, I am still enjoying the brilliant puzzle and video: 100% I am, best way to spend a Saturday evening.
Please update the rules to clarify that the loop can't travel diagonally, I was stuck for an hour before I relented and watched the solve and was blown away that wasn't in the rules but just assumed to be true.
Wow I searched up cracking the cryptic because I randomly felt like a sudoku and there's a new one perfectly in time.
It‘s not a Sudoku tho as It’s a Saturday 🤣
I did comment before watching because I was so excited. Watching it now
@@carrotisalie you can basically set an alarm clock to CTC videos. 8:30 and 11:00 UK time every night.
For the checker, you could have done bitwise-like operations, for example 1 for unshaded non-loop, 2 for unshaded loop, 3 for shaded non-loop, 4 for shaded loop.
Hell yeah!! 1 hour 45!! Popcorn is ready!!
I finished in 316 minutes. This was a gauntlet of a puzzle. It seems like these puzzles are my kryptonite. There aren't necessarily difficult, but the huge grid size seems to overwhelm my brain and I tend to make very slow progress. I suppose it is because I tend to focus on minor details of the puzzle, completely missing the bigger picture that would speed up my solve. I agree heavily with StephenR's comment from lmd, because that is exactly how I felt. I was convinced several times that I had to have broken the puzzle, but it was intended, which is an incredible feeling. This puzzle did help me in that aspect. Sometimes when I'm doing a puzzle and see something that looks like it is broken, my brain panics and tries to rewind to find the mistake instead of trusting my logic. This puzzle helped me to trust the process, so-to-speak. It was insane how far apart some of those digits were and how they were able to connect without interference. That is some incredible setting. I took my time on this puzzle, but I believe that I made zero mistakes, so that's pretty cool. My brain hurts now. Great Puzzle!
at 43:24 if r12c6 is grey, r12c7 is grey (to not checkerboard), and then the loop is 3 greys in a row ...
I'm just at 44:35 where he asks "if anything is wrong with this?". Yes. Three greys on the loop! Came to comment, but saw your comment first.
Edit: He finds it eventually, at around 1:02:45.
Best day of the week.
Lol thanks for reading out my comment and glad you had some idea of what I experienced. I’d forgotten how clever this puzzle was and quite how many deductions have to be made even if no single one is horrible.
Finished in about 2:20:00. What a fun puzzle.
Brilliant is an understatement... first I misread the rules to think that 3 sequentially in a row/column (un)shaded on the loop is prohibited rather than 3 in a sequence (taking turns into consideration), but including that finished in 85min. Nice Sunday morning activity :)
And I somehow misread the rules to say that more than three in a row along the loop is prohibited, and stared forever for how I could possibly proceed. I had to take a peek at the video to be set straight. And another to help me over a bump on the road. And another. And another. In short, I found it fiendishly difficult to keep all the rules in mind and picking the right one at each point, but having at long last completed it in 161:14, I have to admit that it is entirely fair - provided you can find the right question to ask. And Simon has an impressive knack for doing exactly that!
I loved this puzzle and the video too. This was a lot of good brain fun.
65:59 for me. I really didn't think I would be able to solve this one, but it flowed incredibly nicely all the way through. What a puzzle!!
this was brilliant! love the saturday puzzles.
Totally great work. Thanks.
Just started watching Simon start solving this and this rule set is mad 😜. No wonder we are getting a movie today.
Thanks for these wonderful non-sudoku puzzles, I absolutely love them!
After watching this I thought you can put the numbers on the line path to the next number and continue on, so the grid will be filled from numbers 1-9 along the solve path until the 9's go back to the 1 for the checker? Just a thought.
For solution checker, I was thinking placing a 0 and a 1 on each non-loop shaded and unshaded cells, respectively.
Does the solution checker works here? Because I wrote the 1`s and 2`s (how it was mention in the rules) but it said my solution is not right
I believe it does - I got there after a couple of attempts, but I found it easy to misplace a 1 or a 2 so worth checking very carefully!
Spent 70 minutes on the puzzle being hardstuck because I confused which cells were supposed to be "cave" and which were "wall". These rules were hell to get right
Around 1:38:00, you could demonstrate that is the 1 and 2 ends do not connect directly, they would have to take both intersection, effectively isolating the 7 and 8 ends. That may have been a couple of minutes faster.
That said, pfffuuuiitt! what a puzzle!
(UA-cam converted your timestamp to 1 minute 38 seconds. It's not yet smart enough to realise you meant 1:38:00 🙂)
@@RichSmith77 Thank you.
"Well, presumably we use this, do we...? To start....?"
Well, I don't know where *you're* starting, Simon, but I started about five minutes ago with the realisation that there's only one 1 in the grid and the 2 in the lower righthand corner MUST be on the loop, since there is simply no universe in which it only sees 2 unshaded cells without breaking the puzzle. For starters, the loop is *definitely* not visiting the lower righthand 3 if it isn't visiting the 2 immediately to its upper left, leaving that 3 unshaded. But it couldn't possibly connect to the rest of the unshaded area with the 2 only seeing itselfand one other unshaded cell. So unless we want to break the puzzle *immediately,* we avtually already know the first two points (and their order) that the loop must pass through - which in turn allows us to do some shading
22:18: "Now do we know the colour of this?"
I sure hope we do. The 3 isn't on the loop , so it can only see itself and two more cells. If the one to its left were green (aka visible), then the two to the left of *that* would automatically be visible as well, bringing the total of visible cells from that 3 to four, which is obviously bullshit. So how could that cell be green? Answer: not at all. The two cells (besides itself) that the green 3 sees must be the two above it
1:19:23 You can rule out that 7, because where’s it going to go? Even when you put the line straight through horizontally, it’s straight into a dead-end, because all it does is force where the 6 line connects to its way out
As always when you “don’t know where to look” examine right under your cursor.
His subconscious is almost as clever as he is.
Ahhh, yeah that's a great one 😄
Heads up, you also need to enter '2' in the loop crossings when checking the solution.
Thanks, I still don't get a correct solution check. I don't know where I went wrong, as I don't see any difference between mine and Simon's grid, but now I at least know that the solution check should be in order.
1:29:35 'I don't know where to look' as Simon's cursor hovers over exactly the place where he should be looking!
This might be later in the video if im right, but i think simon may have missed an option for the bottom row early in the video. He was working off of the logic that the two lines in the bottom rows could not connect because it would connect a 2 and a 4. This made sense until the bottom line encountered a 3, at which point it no longer made sense to use the logic from earlier. There might be some other logic that precludes it, but i don't think that was considered.
This puzzle is awesome to watch nonetheless!
You're right. But I don't think he did any progression based on the logic that those loop ends couldn't meet, after they encounter a 3. They did not connect for other reasons.
If you're talking about the part around minute 30:00, I think that when he says he has to keep the bottom two lines apart, "until the line crosses a 3" is implied.
As soon as the line does go through the 3, he still has to keep them apart because we then know that the other line has to cross the 1 next.
@@katiekawaiidoes it? The loose end in row 14 either goes to 3 or 1, but the loose end in row 13 connects to the loose end in row 11, which then has to go to a 4. The problem with the bottom two lines connecting is the line going 2-4, but if it hits a 3 before then it should be fine, surely?
at 24:00, why couldn't the loop go up to the right diagonally into that green above the green three? why did it have to go left? I didn't see anything in the rules saying the loop had to pass orthogonally.
Edit: it seems that's just an inherent rule, I wish it was called out explicitly because it was really hard to progress not knowing if you could only move the loop orthogonally.
Interestingly, if you pause the video at 00:50 and read through the comments from Logic Masters Germany that Simon had copied, you will see a comment from KNT replying to someone else, and saying the loop cannot travel diagonally.
But yes, generally, I think loops always travel orthogonally unless otherwise specified.
Ohhhh my good. One look at the grid and the time and I'm already shivering from excitement.
This is going to be fun.
What an insane(ly good) puzzle. Now, if you'll excuse me, my head hurts. My brain has been scrambled somewhat.
1:44:22 -Simon's current solve r1c9 cell should read 7, not the 6 that's premade in the puzzle. (but I think r4c9 should be grey to make the 6 correct)-
Good solve Simon!
What? It is correct
I agree with Lucas. The 6 is correct in Simon's solution. Four cells seen in the column (including itself), and an additional two in the row.
@@Lucashallal My mistake! I feel like a baffoon. I counted the r1c9 cell twice.😢😢 Thank you for pointing it out!
@@RichSmith77 The 2 of you are absolutely correct. I made a stupid mistake of counting the '6' cell twice. Thank you for your comment!
@@flarklooney Easily done. Especially when the count in both row and column is low. You can instantly see three cells horizontally, without even counting, and four vertically. "Well that's clearly 7 in total". I've done it myself.
I feel like you could've just made all cave cells one number and all wall cells a different number for the check at the end, since you can't finish the shading until the loop is finished and correct
Looking at this puzzle and I feel like Homer Simpson with the cymbals banging in his head. 😱
That's one agile loop!
Hello puzzle friends, looking for some clarifications on my assumptions before I start on this one:
The loop must visit all intersections, correct?
And I am not allowed to put in additional digits, correct?
Yes, that is correct. Have fun!
@@BijickY cheers!!
@@TheArbieoAlthough if you want to check your progress against the answer check, you may want to put some 1s on loop corners and 2s on loop straight sections.
@@RichSmith77 thanks! This community is so nice! I'll be starting from now 😄 just got home
@@TheArbieo Good luck! It's fantastic, but quite hard to know where to look next.
After 253 minutes, 2/3 of the grid colored, all shaded digits identified, only for 6 and 7 the lines missing (with two long and several short pieces of line), I hit a dead end - the 6 only could be connected by having 3 unshaded cells in a row (or breaking the cave rules). I'm pausing for now, then at a later day will decide to either roll back until I find my mistake, or watch Simon do it correctly (or show me my mistake, so I can continue from there).
I decided to reset and try again. After ~ 90 minutes, I again hit the same (or at least a similar) dead end. Fortunately this time I didn't give up, and after quite a while figured out that r14 c3+c4 can both be shaded, which solved this problem. From there I could continue, it took then 185:44 to find the full solution (including filling the 1s and 2s - it was not quite clear to me that the crossings also needed to be filled). Solve counter 912.
Trying to do shading and a loop at the same time was a bit too much for me, I couldn't separate the patterns from each other. I reread the rules 100 times at each attempt, but gave up in the end.
good puzzle
Does anyone know how Mark did? I've been Googling but can't find any results.....??
I can't find it either! I'll keep checking and if i come up with anything I'll come back and update
31.50 the answer is connect it trough the 3 clue, then down. One segment goes to the 2, the other to the 4.
He got confused in trying to avoid connecting 4 and 2, but forgot to update this logic if you use a 3 along the way.
Oops, straight through rule prevents this.
This loop is quite similar to the ways of love - it never goes straight.
1:39:45 woops
Just occasionally I think I see how a setter went about setting one of the many incredible puzzles featured on CtC. That never happens with a KNT puzzle. Just how?! 😂
I managed to solve it. It only took me three hours twenty minutes (with a night's sleep in the middle).
56:20 for future reference :D
Love the puzzle but in future could you avoid using red lines on green shading please Simon? It’s not very colour-blind friendly
Remembers to unshade all the other 4s, but no love for the other 3s?
Idk if it's my brain or my English level that made me take quite a few time to understand the rules haha it's wild
Interesting choice to use the verb 'dictate' later-on after drawing a swastika in R11C5 and surrounding cells🤣
If the bottom left 6 isn't on the loop it's been complete since the start.
Why did Simon 55 minutes into the video start quoting private baldrick?
If the puzzle doesn't include a solution how have 15 people solved it?
1:12:14 “I like spiders much more than flies.” I knew Simon had a flaw buried deep down somewhere. All is now revealed!
took me an hour of watching to understand the rules
I really dislike the use of 'shaded' and 'unshaded' in puzzle rules. Especially when there's different rules applying to each group. The words are too similar, and it gets very hard to correctly parse the rules. It would be much easier if the rules simply said 'red' and 'green' (or any two colors really). Those words are much more easily assigned to something my brain can visualize than shaded and unshaded.
First I use ours solving the puzzle. Then I use ours to watch Simon solve the same puzzle. There has to be something very wrong with me...
Or right 🙂
Tw: swast*kas
tedious, not challenging, just long and boring, much of the same ad nauseum
Okay I won't.
Clickbait is demeaning.
Just part of UA-cam's game you have to play. So long as the content of the video actually matches the title, it's not the worst thing in the world, I guess. Probably wouldn't get many views if you called it "Cave Stations by KNT" or "CtC Video No. 5361".
@@MisterM2402 You absolutely don't have to play that game. A channel don't have to do anything imaginable to attract whatever views they can get - if that wad the goal of this channel, don't make a channel about sudokus at all.
You cultivate the audience that you create content for. By creating clickbait you cultivate a worse community, which I think is much worse than a smaller community. I hate, hate, hate it with a passion.
@@theWebWizrd If no one watches your videos, how do you cultivate an audience? Do you think CtC would have 600k subs if every video was titled "Here is another Sudoku puzzle"? You need to get people to choose your video out of all the other options that are presented to them, and many people don't realise how fascinating Sudoku can be so they wouldn't click otherwise. Veritasium has an interesting video on this called "Clickbait is Unreasonably Effective" that discusses the different types.
Say you ran this channel, what title would you personally give this video that would attract new viewers who haven't seen CtC or don't know what a cave puzzle is?
If the title is a lie then yes it’s demeaning. The title however did not lie. Unless you think that it wasn’t brilliant however that’s more so an opinion about the puzzle rather than the video.
Simon, you're pronouncing "non" wrong. You're saying "nun". "non" rhymes with "gone"
Might just be a dialect thing! It's good not to assume something as wrong when it could be right for someone else.