Adding constraints that encode the additional rules is also a little puzzle, eh?
I'll probably work on it later this evening for fun.
I wouldn't think Sudoku is machine work. Yes, a machine can solve it, but it's not intended to be machine work.
Or like digging a large ditch without aid of a backhoe.
To me there is a clear hierarchy or graduation of puzzles. Metaphorically:
1. Ditch digging by hand.
2. Planning efficient ditch layouts to be dug by machines.
3. Designing new and better ditch digging machines.
- - - -
1. Solving Sudoku puzzles.
2. Designing new Sudoku puzzles (with additional constraints even.)
3. Designing e.g. CLP(FD) programs to solve all sudoku puzzles everywhere.
- - - -
What I'm saying is, Why don't people move up that hierarchy? Why is level 1 so fascinating to people?
I believe that anyone who can solve sudoku can program a computer, but they don't. Why not?
https://swish.swi-prolog.org/p/Boring%20Sudoku.swinb
- - - -
I don't mean this in a critical way, just an observation. To me the video was boring because watching a human do machine work is frustrating (to me). (As fast and as clever as that fellow is, he's still so slow compared to a computer.)
However, designing elegant constraint rules to encode the special constraints of this puzzle is also a puzzle, and that puzzle seems interesting to me. (Although not very because it's not that challenging.)
I have the same problem with most video games: after playing just a little while I get bored and want to reprogram the game itself instead of just playing it.
Do y'all feel me, or am I just a freak?