I’m starting to question my choice of posting all the linkable practice puzzles before the corresponding WPC review post… This is a great take on the standard Domino dissection puzzle that keeps the core while making it logically richer and less susceptible to uniqueness deductions.
Rules Partition the grid into areas of size three, such that each domino can be placed within one of the areas.
Or see the instruction booklet.
Next WPC preparation puzzle, this one from round 5, Variations. You might as well call it a First Seen No-Islands Tapa.
Rules Shade some empty cells to form a Coral, compare Puzzle 27. The clue cells count as empty cells for the coral and can not be shaded. They indicate the lengths of the first blocks seen in each of the up to four directions.
Or better see the instruction booklet.
The 27th WPC is over. Like the last time I did this, there’ll be some criticism (as there would have been for the two past years), so let me thank the authors and organizers right away for the terrific job they did. I’ll go through the competition round by round again, covering rounds 1 through 3 (morning of day 1) in this post.
Like last time, I’ll compare to the 10th best score of each round. That value is reasonably unaffected by the out-of-this-world scores at the very top.
Below, continuing the story of day 1, I’ve collected some thoughts on the rest of the WPC in Bulgaria. And as before, failed to cut down the length.
Below I’ve collected some thoughts on the first half of the WPC 2015 in Sofia, mostly about the puzzles and how they went for me. The second half is still to come (here), but this is getting and taking so long I think I’d better post now. I’ve collected some information from the full result table at http://www.wscwpc2015.org/wpc2015_results.xlsx, particularly the 10th best score of each round, which seems like a good point of comparison. Especially for my personal analysis, since I was hoping to take a shot at the top 10 this year.
Since this doesn’t come with any summary yet to put the inevitable criticism into perspective, I’d like to start by thanking everyone involved, but particularly the puzzle authors. While there were some issues with puzzle formatting and point allocation, and general organizational problems, the puzzles themselves were of consistently high quality; I’m not aware of a single broken puzzle.
Edit: Here’s a link to the instruction booklet.