This is a particularly extreme Sudoku puzzle but the Finned Swordfish is nicely arranged. As discussed in the article on SwordFish it is not necessary for every cell in the 3 by 3 formation to contain the candidate, in this example candidate 3. This SwordFish is a 2-2-3 version since we have 3 twice in the first column, twice in the second column and three times in the third column. It is orientated on the columns since they are the units where candidate 3 occurs at least three times but no more. We are eliminating in the rows.

Now, that said it is not a perfect Swordfish because the centre column 5 contains an extra 3 in J5, which ruins the whole formation. However, the Finned Rule says we can ignore it if we confine the eliminations to the box where the fin is, namely box 8. There is one 3 that we can remove, on G4.

Now, that said it is not a perfect Swordfish because the centre column 5 contains an extra 3 in J5, which ruins the whole formation. However, the Finned Rule says we can ignore it if we confine the eliminations to the box where the fin is, namely box 8. There is one 3 that we can remove, on G4.

Two examples now of the Sashimi variety of Finned SwordFishies.

Figure two is a little more bunched up but we have a 2-2-3 formation based on eliminations in rows. The exceptional candidate 3 which blocks this from being a perfect SwordFish is on G2. But we can invoke the Sashimi observation to ignore the lack of a 3 on H2, one of the corners of the SwordFish. Eliminating in row H and box 7 we an remove the 3 from H1.

The second example illustrates that the Sashimi cell doesn't have to be a clue or a solved cell. The brown cell A6 simply lacks the candidate 7, which had been removed using previous logical strategies. The double fin is in green, A4 and A5. This is quite a restricted SwordFish, which in row orientation is a 1-2-2 formation - but it works!

Here is a lovely Sudoku made by Klaus Brenner (April 2012).

Try loading this one. It contains

Try loading this one. It contains

- 1 X-Wing on 6
- 1 Finned-X-Wing on 6
- 1 Swordfish on 9
- 1 Finned Swordfish on 6, brown cell H9 never contained a 6
- 1 Finned Sashimi Swordfish on 6, brown cell G8 never contained a 6

## Comments

Comments Talk## Friday 10-Feb-2017

## ... by: Reetou

I'm trying to implement finned/sashimi swordfish in my own solver and using your solver to verify results.While solving puzzle 7.9.........4..2.7.2....3...72......3...17.6.9..2...345347..1.929.........1......

After some other steps, puzzle gets into this state:

There is a sashimi swordfish in rows 2, 6, 7 and columns 3, 5, 6 with fin in r2c2 which eliminates 6 from r3c3.

Am I missing something or just found space for improvement of your solver? Which is brilliant anyway.

## Wednesday 17-Oct-2012

## ... by: Ludi

In order not to miss out on possible finned swordfish scenarios I would just like to confirm that I do understand the exact definition of this configuration correctly. Does the "fin" have to be the a second or third candidate in one of the defining columns (or rows) of the swordfish, or can it actually be a fourth candidate in a defining column (or row)?## Friday 3-Jun-2011

## ... by: Rainer

The explanation of example 2 is flawed or the description of the rule is wrong.Applying the same logic as in the Finned Sashimi Example 1 to Example 2, I find an 'imperfect' 2-1-2 SwordFish in columns 1, 6 and 7.

Accordingly, A6 in Example 2 has the same role than H2 in Example 1; a cell of the SwordFish that does not contain the candidate.

Thinking in columns the 'fin' would be B6; restricting elimination to the box of the SwordFish, A4 and A5 could be deleted.

The example argues the other way round: A4 and A5 being a 'double fin' and B6 to be deleted!

Where is the fault?