Japanese crossword «Scuba Diver»
Size: 26x33 | Picture: | Difficulty: | Added: | 01.12.17 | Author: potato |
Very symmetrical. Prefer these when just trying to relax... do others feel 'guessing' based on symmetry is 'cheating'. How about guessing based on the image, (this square should be blue to match the other eye, etc..) or do you prefer solving based solely on logic?
Nice pic, btw.
replyNice pic, btw.
If a puzzle is truly symmetric, I don't consider it cheating to copy squares from one side to the other. If I've already worked out the logic for one group of squares, it's pointless to work it out again. This puzzle was not 100% symmetric though, so one has to be careful to identify the areas that are different.
replyPotato, congratulations on submitting your first puzzle! I thought about trying to design a puzzle myself, but it seems too complicated to make it beautiful, interesting to look at, interesting to solve, and unique. Thank you for this puzzle and we hope you will design many more!
replyJohn and Rasterizer, "guessing" is putting in answers and hitting "check solution" to see if you got them right. Or maybe that's "cheating." Guessing is putting in answers based on a guess about what the picture is. On the other hand, if you see a repeating pattern *in the numbers!* that corresponds to legs and feet, it is not guessing to enter it. That is logic.
replyI agree with Sheryl's statement on completing symmetrical sections/puzzles. But I would add that there are times when you can't quite tell what the image is and you might try to foresee or "guess" where some squares might get filled in. So you're using patterns and human reasoning to "guess" what will come next. I prefer not to complete these puzzles that way - I want the numbers to tell me what to enter, not my intuition of what the creator intended. But it's still not "cheating." If you don't use "check puzzle," you will eventually logic out what you got wrong.
replyI like it :) It's a very cool one, nice start! Thanks!
replyGreat image; small puzzle for such an extensive discussion, ;-)
reply