Solution needed for 7x7 Matrix/Sudoku (with additional restriction rules)

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter skavorn
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rules
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on creating a 7x7 matrix for football tactics that adheres to specific rules akin to Sudoku. The primary constraints include ensuring unique tactics in each row and column, avoiding reversed pairs in rows, and maintaining reciprocal relationships between tactics. The user employs the KenKen Solver but finds it insufficient for the additional rules. The conversation reveals that trial and error is a viable method for solving the matrix, with participants confirming the existence of solutions while discussing the potential for multiple configurations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of matrix structures and Sudoku principles
  • Familiarity with tactical analysis in football
  • Knowledge of KenKen Solver functionality
  • Basic problem-solving skills in combinatorial logic
NEXT STEPS
  • Research advanced Sudoku-solving techniques for constraint satisfaction
  • Explore combinatorial game theory applications in tactical analysis
  • Learn about algorithmic approaches to matrix filling
  • Investigate other puzzle-solving tools similar to KenKen Solver
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for game theorists, football analysts, and puzzle enthusiasts interested in combinatorial logic and tactical strategy development.

skavorn
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Ok what I'm trying to do is create a table where football tactics counter each other in a numbered order. Such as like a filled in order of the below table...
countertable.jpg


This can be simplified into a 7x7 matrix table such as the below (by renaming the tactics, 1-7)
sudoku.jpg


We have 3 rules that need to be adeared to:
1) There needs to be a different tactic in each row and each column. Essentially making like a sudoku puzzle.
2) Rows can't have the same 2 numbers reversed. i.e. 6, 7 should not be 7,6 elsewhere
ctableexample.jpg

3) Every number entered needs to have it's opposite entered. i.e. if Attacking is 2nd strongest vs Balanced, then Balanced is 2nd weakest vs Attacking. Here's an illustrated example...
sudexample.jpg


I've been using this to assist me KenKen Solver, however it doesn't take additional rules 2 & 3 into consideration.

Is this solvable?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I'm not sure I understand rule #2. You circled (1,2), (2,1) and (6,5), (5,6). I get those. But you put an arrow on (5,6) in column '6' and columns '5' and '4'?

And what do the colours mean? Does 1 (red) mean strongest?

If so, there obviously is a tactic strong against another, but weak against a different tactic, which itself is strong against the first tactic.

Eg. We know that:
5 > 3 (row 1)
3 > 2 (row 6)
2 > 4 (row 4)
4 > 5 (row 7)

Where we see that a tactic (4) which is weaker than tactics themselves weaker than 5 is actually stronger than tactic 5. Or is there something I didn't get here?
 
Unknown008 said:
I'm not sure I understand rule #2. You circled (1,2), (2,1) and (6,5), (5,6). I get those. But you put an arrow on (5,6) in column '6' and columns '5' and '4'?

And what do the colours mean? Does 1 (red) mean strongest?

If so, there obviously is a tactic strong against another, but weak against a different tactic, which itself is strong against the first tactic.

Eg. We know that:
5 > 3 (row 1)
3 > 2 (row 6)
2 > 4 (row 4)
4 > 5 (row 7)

Where we see that a tactic (4) which is weaker than tactics themselves weaker than 5 is actually stronger than tactic 5. Or is there something I didn't get here?

Essentially I mean anytime two columns have a row next to each other I don't want them matching otherwise one tactic has the same two advantages/disadvantages, just in reversed order. I do not want this. I don't want attacking best against, balanced second best, and then attacking second best, balanced best in another tactic.

Yes colours represent strength, green is strongest, red is weakest

Numbers in the middle are against themselves, so there is no advantage(null)
 
If I got the rules right, how about:

View attachment 786

I started with your example but it lead to nowhere. From there I tried '2' (I couldn't put '1' since there was already '1' in the row) at the top right corner and everything magically fell into place.

I tried others but I quickly spotted illegal 'moves'. Maybe I missed one here, and if so, I don't believe there's a solution.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot.png
    Screenshot.png
    2 KB · Views: 83
Just checked it out and it works perfectly. Thank you so much!

Additional question, is there multiple solutions to this or is there only one?

Also how did you work it out, was it just manual trial and error?
 
I couldn't find any more solutions, sorry.

And yes, it was trial and error on the first number only. Then using Rules 2 and 3, I put all the numbers one after the other.

Say, I put 2 in the upper left corner, it means I look for 2 and 3 everywhere in the grid and put them in that order.

Like this:

View attachment 787

And here you see that we get a couple other patterns (boxed in red) which I can use to fill in the blue box squares.

You will also notice another pattern (green) that you can use. You go on like this and you'll be able to fill in all the squares.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot.png
    Screenshot.png
    3.8 KB · Views: 89
That's been really helpful, thank you so much
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
6K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
9K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
26K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K