Rules: Divide the grid along the grid lines in 6 non-overlapping regions containing 6 cells each. A region must not contain two cells with the same digit. Neighbouring cells that have a bold separation can't be part of the same region.

This puzzle has actually same rules as burokku puzzles, the difference is that it is a latin square (thus have some seperations of regions already placed).

An argument that I've heard in the past is that if the solution of a puzzle is the solution of a sudoku puzzle, then the puzzle is a sudoku. The solution of this puzzle is clearly a solution of sudoku puzzle.

Potential issue: this puzzle is a dissection puzzle, not a symbol placement puzzle.

Actually, this is not a very new example. I created it in 2017 to feed a discussion.## Burodoku [new example]

### Re: Burodoku [new example]

One of the most interesting factors (to me) is that you could easily make a variation of this with some numbers missing (and possibly some more bold separations). Then you could make another variant with even more gaps and barriers. And so on, step by step, getting closer and closer to a traditional irregular sudoku, until you just have a puzzle we would all agree is a traditional irregular sudoku. Where would you draw the line in that group of puzzles? Wherever you draw it, you're going to have 2 almost identical puzzles, one on each side of the line. As I've said before, I don't like the idea of that. So maybe the conclusion is that this puzzle is acceptable in a sudoku competition? I'm sure you'd get very few people who agreed if you showed them this puzzle in isolation, but if you show a sequence of puzzles with only tiny changes, it becomes more compelling. (Although I could be missing something obvious.)

And even more compelling, it does 'look like' a sudoku.

And even more compelling, it does 'look like' a sudoku.

### Re: Burodoku [new example]

I tend to agree with Fred and disagree with Neil here.

I think as soon the puzzle involves elements which don't involve placing numbers, then we have veered away from Sudoku - even if there are just one or two line segments missing. From that point of view I think we are repeating a discussion we've already had. Yes you can make very small tweaks and end up with a sequence of (maybe thousands) puzzles which at either end of the sequence look completely different. I do not think that this means that it would be impossible to draw the line however.

I think as soon the puzzle involves elements which don't involve placing numbers, then we have veered away from Sudoku - even if there are just one or two line segments missing. From that point of view I think we are repeating a discussion we've already had. Yes you can make very small tweaks and end up with a sequence of (maybe thousands) puzzles which at either end of the sequence look completely different. I do not think that this means that it would be impossible to draw the line however.

### Re: Burodoku [new example]

I'll also add that on reflection, this example isn't a million miles away from Tripod Sudoku

### Re: Burodoku [new example]

In my opinion, the dissection of regions should be entirely given for all sudokus. It means only the traditional irregular sudoku is a sudoku variation for me. (For the same reason, I voted "no" for the tripod sudoku).Nilz wrote: ↑Thu 14 Feb, 2019 7:15 pmOne of the most interesting factors (to me) is that you could easily make a variation of this with some numbers missing (and possibly some more bold separations). Then you could make another variant with even more gaps and barriers. And so on, step by step, getting closer and closer to a traditional irregular sudoku, until you just have a puzzle we would all agree is a traditional irregular sudoku. Where would you draw the line in that group of puzzles?

I tend to dislike arguments that would be nonsensical in other situations. The argument about tiny changes seems nonsensical to me, because you can just use this argument to say that any kind of puzzle is a sudoku variation.Nilz wrote: ↑Thu 14 Feb, 2019 7:15 pmWherever you draw it, you're going to have 2 almost identical puzzles, one on each side of the line. As I've said before, I don't like the idea of that. So maybe the conclusion is that this puzzle is acceptable in a sudoku competition? I'm sure you'd get very few people who agreed if you showed them this puzzle in isolation, but if you show a sequence of puzzles with only tiny changes, it becomes more compelling. (Although I could be missing something obvious.)

The arguement: "Puzzle X" is a variations of "puzzle Y" if we can reach it by successive tiny changes works for every kind of puzzles. Thus the set of sudoku variations described by this argument is just the set of puzzles. It means you can just say the winner of WPC is world sudoku champion, because all puzzles are sudoku variations. It seems absurd to me.

Fred