My favorite part of this solve is when Mark would say "I'm sure the path forward to look at this sequence in box 3" and then spend the next five minutes looking anywhere else. Then when he does it again. And again. This was a fun puzzle, and a good solve. It's easy to know what to do when you've already done it and aren't under any pressure. Thanks!
I finished in 23:31 minutes. Dynamic fog always freaks me out whenever I place digits and don't clear fog. On the upside, it makes me have to be super confident in my choice. The green dot was an excellent rule. I love how even with the extra room, 5 and 7 were still unable to play ball. I think that leads to my favorite part, which was looking at where 57 went in both columns 8 and 9. This led to a lovely naked 9 in box 3, which in turn decided the fate of the 57 in column 9. That was some sick setting. The rest was very enjoyable. The dots were simple, but they were used quite effectively in this puzzle. As always, it feels good to beat Mark's time. Great Puzzle!
I've been following the channel for about a month and this is only the 3rd puzzle I've solved without using hints from video. I paused it before he placed his first pencil marking, and it was reassuring to come back after I finished and see that we both used the strategy of coloring the 16 and 57 pairs. Your videos are now an evening staple and I'm getting much faster and better at not making logic errors!
One thing you missed, which could have helped much earlier, is that r3c8 could not have been a 4, because it would have to be surrounded by 2 and 8, which would have broken r1c9. This places 2, 3, 4, and 8 in box 3 much earlier.
From 18:30, you couldn't put 4 in r4c8, because as you follow the dots around it goes 4 • 8 • 4 • 8 • 💥 and you can't fill r3c7. I zipped through this one in under 12 minutes, and now I'm worried that I overlooked some huge pieces of logic and fluked it, but I can't see anything Mark did that felt unfamiliar.
The obvious question that Mark missed for so long was "what happens if r4c8 is a 4" because it was never possible. He marked the "monogamous 8" as a possibility in r3c8 incorrectly.
What a pleasure to watch your video, Mark, and that great solve of a tricky puzzle! Nope, I don't know that it was tricky because I tried it myself. No no, not me, with a Mark video length of 46 minutes. I would possibly give a try to a Simon video of that length, but you are much more efficient in your solves, so that shows right there that it is a tricky puzzle and above my pay grade. Thanks for all that you do on this channel, Mark, on the daily basis as well as all of the special content. I love it!
Even more surprised that the 2/8 pair in R9 wasn’t noticed sorting out box 6… though the benefit of viewing the solve rather than doing the solve I suppose
I believe this puzze is so easy for him that he doesn't even need to wake up his neurons. It is easy for me. Imagine how easy it is for a World Champion...
both of them get involved with variant rules and logic so they often skip sudoku rules. basically they should check sudoku rules with every digit and pair they input into the puzzle
This one was a challenge for me, but I was able to get through it. Knowing there were more possibilities was what made this puzzle interesting ( in terms of the kropki dots). Thank you for sharing this with everyone
What a evil puzzle! I did the same mistake 2 times because of constant lack of attention so it takes 39:50 (surprisingly fast for me). Despite the mistakes I managed to open new cells for some time because of how dynamic fog works so it was even more frustrating filling a cell with digit without it becoming white at some point.
So did I, but I took 45 min. I've noticed that you and I often post quite similar times, so I suspect that here you spotted the intended solution path, I missed it and had to fall back on brute force pencilling. Well done!
Rules: 02:08 Let's Get Cracking: 03:16 What about this video's Top Tier Simarkisms?! Three In the Corner: 2x (43:16) Knowledge Bomb: 1x (01:44) And how about this video's Simarkisms?! Ah: 7x (23:10, 24:49, 26:38, 28:05, 35:21, 36:34, 38:24) Wow: 6x (16:01, 20:03, 29:42, 38:12, 40:49, 45:42) Sorry: 5x (06:19, 10:51, 31:28, 33:52, 42:27) Obviously: 5x (04:08, 16:37, 16:54, 20:52, 29:49) Goodness: 4x (18:09, 21:29, 31:20, 45:32) In Fact: 4x (06:08, 17:20, 21:32, 27:30) Pencil Mark/mark: 4x (11:09, 22:36, 30:08, 41:32) Brilliant: 3x (00:54, 28:09, 46:01) Clever: 2x (20:08, 39:10) By Sudoku: 2x (13:18, 16:20) Hang On: 2x (36:29, 44:49) Surely: 2x (42:51, 43:51) Fabulous: 2x (01:00, 01:02) Weird: 2x (10:20, 33:06) Stuck: 1x (33:50) Lovely: 1x (16:07) Irritating: 1x (40:32) Progress: 1x (37:33) *****ing: 1x (42:18) Most popular number(>9), digit and colour this video: Forty Eight (7 mentions) Two, Three (106 mentions) Green (25 mentions) Antithesis Battles: Even (2) - Odd (1) White (13) - Black (5) Column (19) - Row (16) FAQ: Q1: You missed something! A1: That could very well be the case! Human speech can be hard to understand for computers like me! Point out the ones that I missed and maybe I'll learn! Q2: Can you do this for another channel? A2: I've been thinking about that and wrote some code to make that possible. Let me know which channel you think would be a good fit!
Yes, drawing the graph of what digits can connect to what digits with a green dot makes the logic a lot easier. Showing the 2/3 having 3 legs and forms a cycle with 1/6. It also does need 2 white dots for the 1/6 and 5/7 as a dot that resolves the 5/7 can't use the 6 to resolve the 1/6
Solved in 24:15. A relatively easy puzzle if you manage to figure out that it's the kropki digits plus a 1:3:9 relationship and a new 2:6 relationship. Interesting to see how they interact without clashing.
Genious title 😂👍 The difficulty level of this puzzle is about *0.5 stars* out of *5.* I almost did not need pencilmarks to solve it. This puzzle is just a *genuinely approachable* introduction to a mildly innovative twist on *kropki constraints.* Nothing more than a gentle warm up for a World Champion like Mark. On the other hand, a *triple double* is an extraordinary feat in NBA basketball... 🏀
*Extraordinary* is a word that Simon used often in the past to describe *puzzles* featured on CTC. Some may think he was exaggerating. I think he was aleays 100% right. That's one of the reasons why CTC is by far the best sudoku channel on youtube, in my opinion... Of course, the other reason is that they also feature extraordinary (and brilliantly commented) *solves.*
The Westbrook thumbnail had me intrigued. I messed up the puzzle early and didn't realize it until I was trying to wrap up about 21 minutes in. I restarted, then got it in 19:28, but that doesn't really count.
I was curious who that was. (wasn't able to get pic large enough and clear enough to see all the details) Is that Westbrook in a Rockets jersey? Hmmm actually now that I think about it, I should've been able to recognize it as Westbrook since he's one of the few that wear that sleeve.
14:38. When I reveled the white dot between box 4 and 7 (with a 6) and already knew the attached box was either a 5 or 7, I thought I did something wrong because I was thinking, how could the 5s and 7s be disambiguated? What a clever red herring. Spoiler another white dot did appear soon after.
Was going great, but then I about halfway I got stuck. Took me to do some colouring to get things slowly moving again. I probably just missed some logic steps. Thanks for the solve! :) PS. Watching the video now. And am surprised that Mark took so long with the start. I started by pencil marking the extreme digits and filled in the rest of the column to find which 6 digits could be in the sequence. Since when I reached the "split"digit didn't work one way around, I flipped them and all fitted. :) Fastest start for me ever!
I thought you had missed the green dot half-appearing under the fog in box 3 row 3 for a while. But then you saw it but could have gotten a few more implications out of it (first, no 8 in R3C8, and then no 4 in the same cell) which would have sped things up I think even without getting the coloring done with purples and oranges in column 7.
The way I solved this, I ended up getting that 6 on the white dot before any 5s or 7s. And since I spent almost the whole puzzle waiting for a white dot to tell me where a 5 or a 7 would be, it gave me a good laugh when I finally got the dot... with a 6.
@@jonahkorsgren2267 There is definitely more then one solve path towards the end but if you put a digit in r6c1 before a white dot was revealed then I think you made a mistake and got lucky, the 16 pairs form deadly pattern and the white dots are required to differentiate them. Any cell where you put a 1 before the white dots can also be a 6 and vice versa.
I was going to say, if I swap 1s and 6s in the final solution, the only thing that breaks is that white dot. It's definitely needed to disambiguate 1s and 6s. (Great puzzle, Jaxar).
Fun fact, every double, triple, or quadruple-ratio dot in the range 1-9 *must* have at least one of the digits 2,3,4 (also, it can only have two if it's a double-ratio dot with 2 and 4). I wonder how much less trial and error would've been used knowing this
Can't believe I solved it faster That's my first time that happened Great puzzle! Edit: now that i finished the video, I'm also surprised how differently i solved it compared to Mark. Which makes the puzzle even better!
For the last bit, when you know all the colors/polarity, you can select a color, lets say blue, add all high candidates, then remove them. It will leave you with all the low candidates and the right ones...do the same for red, and then switch selecting from color to numbers and its done ;)
Not specifically, I had the initial idea of 3:1 or 2:1 ratios and them being triple or double inspired the title as a general basketball reference. I only noticed the 23 relationships during setting making it an unintended double entendre.
I did this in 18:53 and then jumped back over to the video...and I'm pretty sure I must have accidentally made a mistake in my logic that turned out to be correct. I had the 1/6/9 in box 6 done well before the end, I think I must have placed the 1 without realising it could be a 6 and cleared up a bunch of other stuff. Doesn't feel as good when I think I made a mistake.
You are not the only one, a few people who helped me test it claimed they solved without one of the white dots which I do not think is possible. As far as I recall from testing, this does not change too much on the solve path though, you just do not get a bunch of 16 pairs at the end.
I understand what you mean, but personally I don't mind really. Maybe you'll get used to it eventually? The benefit is that the constructor can fine tune what clues are to be used at what time in a puzzle, so I figure it will only be more and more common
@ maybe… I’m afraid of making a mistake but accidentally getting some future digit right that unveils something I otherwise wasn’t meant to know. I like the ‘setter guiding the solver’ concept but get gunshy when I toss a digit into the fog and get no feedback at all
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I actually like it when Mark has a Bad Scanning Day, because it is the only chance I ever have to finish a solve faster than him.
Thanks for solving my puzzle. Hope everyone enjoys it 🙂
Just solved in 31:01. Very fun solve, especially the beginning with the triple double dots
Amazing puzzle 😄
Loved it! Thanks for the puzzle.
This was really good. One of the most fun puzzles I did in months.
Loved it, thank you!
My favorite part of this solve is when Mark would say "I'm sure the path forward to look at this sequence in box 3" and then spend the next five minutes looking anywhere else. Then when he does it again. And again.
This was a fun puzzle, and a good solve. It's easy to know what to do when you've already done it and aren't under any pressure. Thanks!
I finished in 23:31 minutes. Dynamic fog always freaks me out whenever I place digits and don't clear fog. On the upside, it makes me have to be super confident in my choice. The green dot was an excellent rule. I love how even with the extra room, 5 and 7 were still unable to play ball. I think that leads to my favorite part, which was looking at where 57 went in both columns 8 and 9. This led to a lovely naked 9 in box 3, which in turn decided the fate of the 57 in column 9. That was some sick setting. The rest was very enjoyable. The dots were simple, but they were used quite effectively in this puzzle. As always, it feels good to beat Mark's time. Great Puzzle!
I've been following the channel for about a month and this is only the 3rd puzzle I've solved without using hints from video. I paused it before he placed his first pencil marking, and it was reassuring to come back after I finished and see that we both used the strategy of coloring the 16 and 57 pairs. Your videos are now an evening staple and I'm getting much faster and better at not making logic errors!
One thing you missed, which could have helped much earlier, is that r3c8 could not have been a 4, because it would have to be surrounded by 2 and 8, which would have broken r1c9. This places 2, 3, 4, and 8 in box 3 much earlier.
25:15 for me. I really enjoyed this puzzle. Throughout the puzzle, I just understood what was going on. Great set!
I had everything ready with colors in the end, that final step was beautiful to disambiguate everything
From 18:30, you couldn't put 4 in r4c8, because as you follow the dots around it goes 4 • 8 • 4 • 8 • 💥 and you can't fill r3c7.
I zipped through this one in under 12 minutes, and now I'm worried that I overlooked some huge pieces of logic and fluked it, but I can't see anything Mark did that felt unfamiliar.
The obvious question that Mark missed for so long was "what happens if r4c8 is a 4" because it was never possible. He marked the "monogamous 8" as a possibility in r3c8 incorrectly.
23:34 finish. I always second guess myself when the dynamic fog doesn't clear anything, but I pushed through it. A fun puzzle, excellent!
What a pleasure to watch your video, Mark, and that great solve of a tricky puzzle! Nope, I don't know that it was tricky because I tried it myself. No no, not me, with a Mark video length of 46 minutes. I would possibly give a try to a Simon video of that length, but you are much more efficient in your solves, so that shows right there that it is a tricky puzzle and above my pay grade. Thanks for all that you do on this channel, Mark, on the daily basis as well as all of the special content. I love it!
I’m surprised when Mark noticed the purple 5/7 in C7 box 3 he didn’t see that it ruled out 5/7 in C7 box 6
Even more surprised that the 2/8 pair in R9 wasn’t noticed sorting out box 6… though the benefit of viewing the solve rather than doing the solve I suppose
I believe this puzze is so easy for him that he doesn't even need to wake up his neurons. It is easy for me. Imagine how easy it is for a World Champion...
both of them get involved with variant rules and logic so they often skip sudoku rules.
basically they should check sudoku rules with every digit and pair they input into the puzzle
13:07, very intuitive solve! I love the way the fog unveils for each clue.
This one was a challenge for me, but I was able to get through it. Knowing there were more possibilities was what made this puzzle interesting ( in terms of the kropki dots). Thank you for sharing this with everyone
What a evil puzzle! I did the same mistake 2 times because of constant lack of attention so it takes 39:50 (surprisingly fast for me). Despite the mistakes I managed to open new cells for some time because of how dynamic fog works so it was even more frustrating filling a cell with digit without it becoming white at some point.
Weirdly for Mark, not pencil marking R3C7 caused him no end of heartache
Box 9 is also easier if you ask where 578 go
Yep. There was only one possibility in that square for rather a long time during his stuck period.
He was off his game. To be fair when you do something everyday you’ll have an off day every once in a while. Happens to everyone
Solved in 40:21! i havent played a dynamic fog in soooo long
Finished in 20:10. What a wonderful puzzle, I had a lot of fun with this one!
So did I, but I took 45 min. I've noticed that you and I often post quite similar times, so I suspect that here you spotted the intended solution path, I missed it and had to fall back on brute force pencilling. Well done!
25:44 for me. I prefer normal fog to dynamic but the double triple dots were fun.
Rules: 02:08
Let's Get Cracking: 03:16
What about this video's Top Tier Simarkisms?!
Three In the Corner: 2x (43:16)
Knowledge Bomb: 1x (01:44)
And how about this video's Simarkisms?!
Ah: 7x (23:10, 24:49, 26:38, 28:05, 35:21, 36:34, 38:24)
Wow: 6x (16:01, 20:03, 29:42, 38:12, 40:49, 45:42)
Sorry: 5x (06:19, 10:51, 31:28, 33:52, 42:27)
Obviously: 5x (04:08, 16:37, 16:54, 20:52, 29:49)
Goodness: 4x (18:09, 21:29, 31:20, 45:32)
In Fact: 4x (06:08, 17:20, 21:32, 27:30)
Pencil Mark/mark: 4x (11:09, 22:36, 30:08, 41:32)
Brilliant: 3x (00:54, 28:09, 46:01)
Clever: 2x (20:08, 39:10)
By Sudoku: 2x (13:18, 16:20)
Hang On: 2x (36:29, 44:49)
Surely: 2x (42:51, 43:51)
Fabulous: 2x (01:00, 01:02)
Weird: 2x (10:20, 33:06)
Stuck: 1x (33:50)
Lovely: 1x (16:07)
Irritating: 1x (40:32)
Progress: 1x (37:33)
*****ing: 1x (42:18)
Most popular number(>9), digit and colour this video:
Forty Eight (7 mentions)
Two, Three (106 mentions)
Green (25 mentions)
Antithesis Battles:
Even (2) - Odd (1)
White (13) - Black (5)
Column (19) - Row (16)
FAQ:
Q1: You missed something!
A1: That could very well be the case! Human speech can be hard to understand for computers like me! Point out the ones that I missed and maybe I'll learn!
Q2: Can you do this for another channel?
A2: I've been thinking about that and wrote some code to make that possible. Let me know which channel you think would be a good fit!
it's midnight here, and it's just my bday 🎉 what a treat
Happy birthday!
Happy birthday.
Happy midnight birthday !
Happy birthday, @DrBiscotti
Happy birthday, I hope my puzzle was an adequate gift :)
A tricky one, way out of my pay scale. Well done Mark, a lovely solve.
What a blast! Loved it. ❤ Thanks Pencil-Mark!
Love Pencil-Mark! 👏
I watched this with the appropriate graph (in the graph theory sense) next to me. It made it easier to see sequences and cycles.
Yes, drawing the graph of what digits can connect to what digits with a green dot makes the logic a lot easier. Showing the 2/3 having 3 legs and forms a cycle with 1/6. It also does need 2 white dots for the 1/6 and 5/7 as a dot that resolves the 5/7 can't use the 6 to resolve the 1/6
@@RichardDamonin my solve I saw the 6 next to the 5/7 first and thought it was a joke as I hadn’t yet revealed the 4’s white dot yet
@@mikew6644 Yeah, I also got that 6 before the 4, I laughed so hard at the white dot.
Solved in 24:15. A relatively easy puzzle if you manage to figure out that it's the kropki digits plus a 1:3:9 relationship and a new 2:6 relationship. Interesting to see how they interact without clashing.
8:50 Seconds after Mark said that 1 and 6 have the same two partners, he forgot that to study the possibility of a 16 pair in column 5 !
Neat puzzle idea and great use of the new fog Jaxar! 🎉🎉
(Cheers from 99%Sneaky)
00:22:19 for me. Great puzzle! Loved the simple rules yet fun logic. Kind comment.
Genious title 😂👍
The difficulty level of this puzzle is about *0.5 stars* out of *5.*
I almost did not need pencilmarks to solve it.
This puzzle is just a *genuinely approachable* introduction to a mildly innovative twist on *kropki constraints.*
Nothing more than a gentle warm up for a World Champion like Mark.
On the other hand, a *triple double* is an extraordinary feat in NBA basketball... 🏀
*Extraordinary* is a word that Simon used often in the past to describe *puzzles* featured on CTC.
Some may think he was exaggerating. I think he was aleays 100% right.
That's one of the reasons why CTC is by far the best sudoku channel on youtube, in my opinion...
Of course, the other reason is that they also feature extraordinary (and brilliantly commented) *solves.*
14m47s! That's the first puzzle I've solved, by myself, faster than Simon or Mark!
Really fun. Finished in around 26 mins. Thanks
20:23 for me. Unusual that I beat Mark's time. I loved the endgame on this one.
11:57 for me. What an enjoyable puzzle, really liked it!
The Westbrook thumbnail had me intrigued. I messed up the puzzle early and didn't realize it until I was trying to wrap up about 21 minutes in. I restarted, then got it in 19:28, but that doesn't really count.
I was curious who that was. (wasn't able to get pic large enough and clear enough to see all the details) Is that Westbrook in a Rockets jersey? Hmmm actually now that I think about it, I should've been able to recognize it as Westbrook since he's one of the few that wear that sleeve.
14:38. When I reveled the white dot between box 4 and 7 (with a 6) and already knew the attached box was either a 5 or 7, I thought I did something wrong because I was thinking, how could the 5s and 7s be disambiguated? What a clever red herring. Spoiler another white dot did appear soon after.
19:12 ... the interplay between the 2s and 3s, and the 1s and 6s, was incredible
Nice puzzle!
Was going great, but then I about halfway I got stuck. Took me to do some colouring to get things slowly moving again. I probably just missed some logic steps. Thanks for the solve! :)
PS. Watching the video now. And am surprised that Mark took so long with the start. I started by pencil marking the extreme digits and filled in the rest of the column to find which 6 digits could be in the sequence. Since when I reached the "split"digit didn't work one way around, I flipped them and all fitted. :) Fastest start for me ever!
Super fun. Loved it. 33:33.
I thought you had missed the green dot half-appearing under the fog in box 3 row 3 for a while. But then you saw it but could have gotten a few more implications out of it (first, no 8 in R3C8, and then no 4 in the same cell) which would have sped things up I think even without getting the coloring done with purples and oranges in column 7.
24:15. The whole triple thing got a little confusing, but asking where 5 and 7 went sped things up.
W putting russ in the thumbnail
As a Mavericks fan I would have loved to see Luka but cant complain with the all time triple double leader
19:42 for me. Pretty easy but lots of fun!
35:17 for me - I made a mistake early on and started over (I kept the timer running).
Finished in 30:49
This one was fun
Wow, first time I've ever solved a puzzle quicker than Mark. 28:16 for me today.
as soon as you put 2 in r6c7 the 28 in r3c9 cant be an 8 as it would need a run of 842 and you end up with 2 twos in column 7.
wonderful! solver 5936, took me 38:51
The green dots are, like german wispers, 2-colourable. Though instead of high low you have (2,3,8) and (1,4,6,9). With (5,7) that can’t go on it.
29 minutes here, once I got all the 2x 3x possibilities by heart it went smooth :)
26:22 "x-wing on 3s"... What? 😂
30:58 You could prove it if you did the coloring job better 🙃 then it would have been purple
thumbnail is elite ball knowledge
The way I solved this, I ended up getting that 6 on the white dot before any 5s or 7s. And since I spent almost the whole puzzle waiting for a white dot to tell me where a 5 or a 7 would be, it gave me a good laugh when I finally got the dot... with a 6.
The white dot between R6C1 and R7C1 wasn't necessary for my solve.
Really? Without it I do not think there is a way to differentiate 1 6 pairs.
I filled in R6C1 before the white dot was revealed in my solve, so maybe there were two solve paths.
@@jonahkorsgren2267 There is definitely more then one solve path towards the end but if you put a digit in r6c1 before a white dot was revealed then I think you made a mistake and got lucky, the 16 pairs form deadly pattern and the white dots are required to differentiate them. Any cell where you put a 1 before the white dots can also be a 6 and vice versa.
I was going to say, if I swap 1s and 6s in the final solution, the only thing that breaks is that white dot. It's definitely needed to disambiguate 1s and 6s.
(Great puzzle, Jaxar).
@RichSmith77 I had either a choice of 5/7 in R7C1 and got the 6 in R6C1 another way, so I for one, didn't need that dot.
What an interesting and quite funny puzzle.
17:49 for me. resorted to colouring the 16 and 57 pairs helped and the white dots determined it.
Fun fact, every double, triple, or quadruple-ratio dot in the range 1-9 *must* have at least one of the digits 2,3,4 (also, it can only have two if it's a double-ratio dot with 2 and 4). I wonder how much less trial and error would've been used knowing this
17:57 ! Fun fun.
Can't believe I solved it faster
That's my first time that happened
Great puzzle!
Edit: now that i finished the video, I'm also surprised how differently i solved it compared to Mark. Which makes the puzzle even better!
For the last bit, when you know all the colors/polarity, you can select a color, lets say blue, add all high candidates, then remove them. It will leave you with all the low candidates and the right ones...do the same for red, and then switch selecting from color to numbers and its done ;)
28 in col 9 available to put 2 in col 7
30:25 for me. Fun puzzle!! 😄
Was the title in reference to Michael Jordan? I saw a lot of 23 in this one.
Not specifically, I had the initial idea of 3:1 or 2:1 ratios and them being triple or double inspired the title as a general basketball reference. I only noticed the 23 relationships during setting making it an unintended double entendre.
13:02... I gained an unexpected half hour:)
R6c7 couldn't be purple therefore it must be two, was unlooked coloursudoku for like 10 minutes for Mark. I liked the deductions otherwise.
I did this in 18:53 and then jumped back over to the video...and I'm pretty sure I must have accidentally made a mistake in my logic that turned out to be correct. I had the 1/6/9 in box 6 done well before the end, I think I must have placed the 1 without realising it could be a 6 and cleared up a bunch of other stuff. Doesn't feel as good when I think I made a mistake.
You are not the only one, a few people who helped me test it claimed they solved without one of the white dots which I do not think is possible. As far as I recall from testing, this does not change too much on the solve path though, you just do not get a bunch of 16 pairs at the end.
14:01 for me.
00:30:13
45:38 oops, 42 mins and 15 seconds isn’t divisible by 6
I think he meant the 42 minutes part of that.
sure is.. 422.5s 🤷♂️
43 minutes. Did keep making mostakes.
probably the only time ive solved faster than Mark
38:34
17m 45s
I surely did something wrong, because I finished in 24 minutes, and that never happens...
got a massive 27:21 on this one
I don’t like this ‘new fog’ rule. Anybody else find it disorienting?
I understand what you mean, but personally I don't mind really. Maybe you'll get used to it eventually? The benefit is that the constructor can fine tune what clues are to be used at what time in a puzzle, so I figure it will only be more and more common
@ maybe… I’m afraid of making a mistake but accidentally getting some future digit right that unveils something I otherwise wasn’t meant to know. I like the ‘setter guiding the solver’ concept but get gunshy when I toss a digit into the fog and get no feedback at all
23 minutes
Hey , get both a partner 😂 . Then these puzzles are 75% of my time 😊.