23:38, not too bad, just missed the single 5 in box 9 placed by the claiming 5s in boxes 3 and 6 early on After that there was a 689 triple in column 1, which cleared things up but you only get that when you identify the 247 triple on row 3
21:47 the 5 in column 9 was quite easy to spot if you notice that the 5 cornermarks in box 3 and 6 allign the moment you mark them. For me the bottleneck was the 247 triple in row 3 but gladly it took me half a ninute to spot it.
19:57, not great, but not awful -- for me that is, not for you geniuses 4:47 i noticed aligning 5's that you missed?!? i think you can use your sniffles as an excuse... you still finished well ahead of me, so i surely have a lot of other things to work on wishing you and yours well
That 689 triple in C1 would have cracked it for me..... but of course I couldn't see it until I watched Mr. Rangks's video. So close and yet so far....
Time to hang a Post-It on the monitor: "Remember to check for aligning corner marks!" Key bottlenecks: The claiming 5s in Box 3 and 6 gave the 5 in C9R9 And then it was a matter of finding the triple in R3 I got all excited when the triple removed 7 from C1R4, but I don't think it did anything.
I was lacking a bit. Took 17 minutes and 46 seconds but no complaints :) The reason why I lacked is because when I placed 5 corner marks at boxes 3 and 6, I didn't realize that left me a free 5 spot in the 9th column at the 9th box.
@@stephaniefunke4973 hi, no problem. He noticed there were three cells that were very limited, so he looked closer. He noticed that they were three different combinations of 6,8 and 9, and only those digits, so they *had* to be a triple. In that triple, the 6 was confined to the top two spots. That meant he could conclude the 6 claimed for that column and box.
I don’t quite understand. The bottom cell of the triple could have also been a 7. 6’s were possible in other places as well. Can you explain how this is a triple?
@@mikaylamangotich3367 I thought the same for a while, but on closer inspection no, none of those 3 cells could have contained a 7 - he'd already excluded 7 from those cells because of the 7 on row 1 and the other triples he found on rows 3 and 4.
23:38, not too bad, just missed the single 5 in box 9 placed by the claiming 5s in boxes 3 and 6 early on
After that there was a 689 triple in column 1, which cleared things up but you only get that when you identify the 247 triple on row 3
21:47 the 5 in column 9 was quite easy to spot if you notice that the 5 cornermarks in box 3 and 6 allign the moment you mark them. For me the bottleneck was the 247 triple in row 3 but gladly it took me half a ninute to spot it.
Around 28 minutes for me. It took me a while to spot a 247 naked triple in row 3. After that it was a breeze
This was a sick sudoku. Took me an hour to get it and recognise the y-wings.
No such advanced methods were necessary. For me it was a naked triple in R3 that cracked the puzzle.
I don't know how to do X wings, but i found a Quad that helped me Crack it
19:57, not great, but not awful -- for me that is, not for you geniuses
4:47 i noticed aligning 5's that you missed?!? i think you can use your sniffles as an excuse... you still finished well ahead of me, so i surely have a lot of other things to work on
wishing you and yours well
13:20 for me. Very nice puzzle. A proper hard puzzle. That 247 triple in R3 was key.
I didn’t see the claiming 2’s in box two, but with your video I could solve the puzzle. Bottlenecks was a good way to describe this puzzle.
That 689 triple in C1 would have cracked it for me..... but of course I couldn't see it until I watched Mr. Rangks's video. So close and yet so far....
+1 for this!
Time to hang a Post-It on the monitor: "Remember to check for aligning corner marks!"
Key bottlenecks:
The claiming 5s in Box 3 and 6 gave the 5 in C9R9
And then it was a matter of finding the triple in R3
I got all excited when the triple removed 7 from C1R4, but I don't think it did anything.
Gave up. Almost finished but missed the triple c1 😢
I was lacking a bit. Took 17 minutes and 46 seconds but no complaints :)
The reason why I lacked is because when I placed 5 corner marks at boxes 3 and 6, I didn't realize that left me a free 5 spot in the 9th column at the 9th box.
I am stuck on how you saw the 6,8,9 triple. Can someone explain?
@@stephaniefunke4973 hi, no problem. He noticed there were three cells that were very limited, so he looked closer. He noticed that they were three different combinations of 6,8 and 9, and only those digits, so they *had* to be a triple. In that triple, the 6 was confined to the top two spots. That meant he could conclude the 6 claimed for that column and box.
I don’t quite understand. The bottom cell of the triple could have also been a 7. 6’s were possible in other places as well. Can you explain how this is a triple?
The 69 cell and 89 cell both could have also contained a 7. I am struggling to understand conceptually how this works!
@@myrddin4242 what about the 6 at the very bottom of column 1?
@@mikaylamangotich3367 I thought the same for a while, but on closer inspection no, none of those 3 cells could have contained a 7 - he'd already excluded 7 from those cells because of the 7 on row 1 and the other triples he found on rows 3 and 4.
This one was really hard for me
Took me an hour😭
15,09 lots of hidden triples to be found