From the Foxger’s Den #44: Fillomino
(view image directly for larger form)
or solve online (using our beta test of Penpa-Edit tools; use tab to alternate between a composite mode for line/edge drawing and a number entry mode. Note that the default puzzle info is too long — even for an url shortener — so copy and paste all the text in this file into the “Load” option in the upper-right of the penpa-edit interface to access.)
Theme: Visual and logical
Rules: Standard Fillomino rules.
Answer String: For each cell in the marked rows, enter the area of the polyomino it belongs to. Enter both digits of any two-digit numbers that appear. (Yes, the answer entry is very long but a large puzzle deserves sufficient checks!)
Time Standards (highlight to view): Grandmaster = 14:00, Master = 21:00, Expert = 42:00
Editorial Note: This is our second “Giant” puzzle from Grant following this Masyu, and is representative of several of this size that will be in the book The Art of Puzzles scheduled to be released sometime in September (fingers crossed). Enjoy!
Solution: PDF
Note: Follow this link for other classic Fillomino and this link for more variations on Fillomino puzzles. If you are new to this puzzle type, here are our easiest Fillomino puzzles to get started on.
“Whew. Doing all three of those Nikoli time-trial problems was draining. Maybe there will be something smaller over on grandmaster puzz … AHHH!” Also, amazed that I typed in the key correctly on my first try — I’m far more likely to screw that part up than the actual puzzle.
25:06.
Well, if you know me well enough, I hate large puzzles if they are just a bunch of small tricks stuffed together. This is one of them. I certainly didn’t have an enjoyable experience solving this, although I was pleasantly surprised with the cute tricks at precisely the answer key rows (and very rarely elsewhere). In particular, this means at the start of the puzzle I only stumbled on obvious over obvious deductions, which led me bored and threw away the target times. (I only do it fairly quickly to practice myself on solving without numbers.) As an analogy, I feel like doing this as a chore, like cleaning the house and finding a few things that might be of interest (coins, marbles, etc), but all in all the chore itself is boring.
As a suggestion for future puzzles, try to match the content with the size; use the smallest size (or sufficiently small size) that allows using the trick(s) you want. For example, a 20×36 is certainly acceptable if you put a 492-mino inside where it must wiggle around various other numbers as obstacles. (Even then, it might be too much; you can pack a large mino and wiggle it around obstacles with a smaller size, but I’m giving a generous bound in case the obstacles are complex on themselves which might not be possible in small sizes.) This puzzle is mostly several Tuesday/Wednesday puzzles in one; I prefer a truly Saturday puzzle.
While Grant may be a victim of my own selection bias (I’ve kept his very best 20×36 puzzles for the book so the ones you get for free here are a notch below those), I think you are being unduly harsh about the experience. This was meant, like many of Grant’s puzzles, to be an approachable experience similar to Nikoli’s Fillomino and being “larger but not much harder” is a potential result. I thought this was still well-designed and had two or three nifty tricks that made it worthy of posting.
I like having a variety of challenges here and I consider this a true Saturday puzzle just as all the others. It simply explores a different dimension in reaching its challenge. And there will certainly be some solvers who will prefer this experience to smaller challenges they fail to get logically, like yesterday’s Battleships, which is why sometimes puzzles like this will be posted because we want to offer choices for everyone’s tastes, easy to hard, small to large, familiar to unfamiliar in logic.
I trust your judgment on what constitutes a Saturday puzzle Thomas. It would make sense to have something a little more challenging at the end of the week, whether its in size or difficulty. If you’re trying to provide a wide variety of puzzles for a wide variety of people, that would be one way to help.
I recall you mentioned in one of the early blog posts that Sundays in the future could be reserved for “larger, but not necessarily harder” puzzles ala the New York Times crossword. Perhaps a puzzle like this one could be given a Sunday desgination in the future, leaving Saturday to be reserved for the most difficult of the week. That way, everybody could be satisfied.
The puzzle itself was fine for me, with a smooth and straightforward solve; just what I’d expect from Grant. I’m hoping for some more larger puzzles in the future, but time will tell.
Ah ya, there’s the book. Looking forward to it, then.
Well, sorry for the pretty harsh tone. I was just stating my opinion, although probably the fact that I solved it at 1 AM and kept finding obvious things to do made me post it with my bad mood coating the comment.
I’m sure it’s no problem. If you prefer certain styles or certain types of logic in puzzles, then that’s your preference. I think larger puzzles are great for showcasing more elaborate logic that wouldn’t be possible in smaller puzzles myself. I’ve seen enough Nikoli Fillomino like this one (an assorted bag of tricks rather than one unifying logical theme) that it might not bother me as much.
The mere idea of “I’d rather deal with a 492-mino than do this puzzle” is baffling to me.
25:36
It’s just an example; perhaps a better idea would be putting a bunch of 10-minoes around and making sure they don’t accidentally touch each other. Also possible in a smaller grid (Fillomino-Fillia 2’s bottom Nonconsecutive Fillomino, with all the 10’s and 11’s, is a sufficient example even though it’s a variant). Making the 10-minoes quite ambiguous, like a wire network, which at the end is resolved to make a chain reaction all across the grid is much more fantastic (as it utilizes the size of the grid effectively).
There’s one thing I like about larger puzzles, and it’s that they are not guessable. With small puzzles, especially harder ones, sometimes, I have the feeling of “Did I SOLVED it? Or did I GUESSED it?” On the other hand, I agree with chaaotic_iak’s comment on this puzzle being just a bunch of small tricks put together, without any sort of unifying theme (that I can tell).
1h :52 mins.I had to erase and do the entire fillomino again after completing about 75 %!!because of an error somewhere .I would request Grant to make something similar in line in say a Star Battle or Bulbs where the fun quotient varies in direct proportion with the Grid size.Though i enjoyed solving this puzzle ,it was hard to get the ‘find of the puzzle’ feel in here.I was also on the lookout for some snugly hidden bigger sized polyominoes which would add some spice to the puzzle.A bit disappointed that the biggest i could find is only 7.But credits to Grant for constructing such a big and nice puzzle.
Enjoyed this a lot.
Smooth solve, but I managed to stall briefly a couple of times anyway. An interesting exercise in speed solving, particularly in terms of deciding where to search for progress.
I certainly have no objection to this being presented here and I always enjoy Grant’s work, but I’m another who isn’t quite sure why I do something this size. I reached a dead-end at about 40% and reviewing to find my mistake seemed onerous so I just started over. I made it all the way through the second time – or so I thought until I got the dreaded “incorrect”. I decided I’d re-enter the answer string on more time and then just abandon the whole thing if it didn’t work. Fortunately (I guess), it did.
Quite enjoyed this puzzle. Can understand how some might find it chore like with such a large puzzle. For something of this size I actually assign a different colour to represent each number rather than use actual numbers. The end result is a visually aesthetic puzzle, and get really excited as each step bring it closer to a completed colour map.
Quite easy to visually scan the puzzle and pick up where the next move is possible, far more than I ever could looking at numbers (and avoid silly mistakes).
Thanks for the fun puzzle!
This was both fun and felt like work for me.
Had to start over two times because of a stupid error half way through.
The 3rd time I managed to break the lower right easily which -don’t know why- slowed me down the first two attempts.
Nice tricks especially around the answer rows.