Wrote a solver using basically the same idea back in college. Was kind of fun. Probably some stupid things in there that I would do differently now with more experience.
https://github.com/war1025/sudoku-solver/blob/master/Sudoku/...
https://github.com/war1025/sudoku-solver/blob/master/Sudoku/...
Amusingly, my rationale was much like the author's; I freakin' hate Sudoku. So the fact it's such an obvious candidate to have an automated solver for meant I wrote one (it was also an excuse to do something more meaningful than the intro to CS exercises that class had me doing).
I basically just kept a "possibility space" for each empty cell (containing a list of all possible values it could be), started with the one with the smallest size > 0, tried a value as 'true', removed that possible value from all related cells (same row, column, 3x3), recursed. If an empty cell had a possibility space of 0, it would pop back off the stack, removing that prior 'possibility' and resume from there. If I ever got back to an empty stack, there was no solution.
I threw a few dozen puzzles at it, trying to pull ones that were hard both for humans and, ostensibly, for machines, but I never saw it take more than a couple seconds, and that in the most degenerate "had to try every possible permutation" cases. Hence why I really wish I'd kept the code to throw that one at.
I knew that there could be degenerate cases like that that would cause it to take O(n!) time, but the ones that I ran into still didn't take -that- long, which was what surprised me.
It's also easy to see why this presents a problem for the Norvig solver (and many solvers like it). If you squint at the algorithm you'll see that it behaves like DPLL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DPLL_algorithm) given a CNF encoding of the Sudoku exactly-one constraints. In this scheme constraint propagation only occurs via unit resolution. i.e., when a positive clause is reduced to a single literal because the domain of a cell is reduced to a single digit or a unit/group is reduced to having a single place for a given digit. In Sudoku land these are known as naked and hidden singles.
Unfortunately, the conclusion that none of 2,4,7,8,9 can occupy G5 arises from the interaction of multiple non-unit clauses. It is simply not reachable by unit resolution. As a result, the conflict won't be discovered until the algorithm actually attempts to assign G5, and, since there are many cells that initially have fewer possibilities than G5, this is not likely to happen early in the search.
Some of the faster solvers can handle this by adding checks for "locked candidates", or by representing the logic in a way that's equisatisfiable, but that makes these inferences available to unit resolution. In such cases this puzzle is recognized as unsatisfiable in microseconds.