slitherlink: fun puzzle game
Martin DeMello
Surprisingly hard game (just started playing, and I take 20-30 mins to
solve one of the 5x5 hard puzzles)
martin
Kevin Stone
>
> Surprisingly hard game (just started playing, and I take 20-30 mins to
> solve one of the 5x5 hard puzzles)
Or from here:
http://www.brainbashers.com/puzzleloops
--
Kev
Mike Terry
news:49178a49-bf2e-4ec9...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
I see this month's record is just 6.73 secs for a hard 5x5 puzzle, so you've
a little improving to go before you're up there with the elite performers!
(Well that applies to me too! :-)
But seriously - I can't imaging being able to click anywhere near fast
enough to complete a solution that quickly, even if I knew the solution in
advance - they must be using some interface other than a regular mouse I
think.
Anyway, I like these puzzles too, and can assure you you get much quicker
with practice as you recognise more set patterns, and become better at
visualising possible continuations - with a 5x5 puzzle it's not hard to
visualise the entire solution once the easy edges are filled in, so you
won't be taking 20-30 mins for very long, I think.
(But 6.73 seconds, blimey! :-)
Mike.
Jake
Willem
) "Martin DeMello" <martin...@gmail.com> wrote in message
) news:49178a49-bf2e-4ec9...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
)> http://www.puzzle-loop.com
)>
)> Surprisingly hard game (just started playing, and I take 20-30 mins to
)> solve one of the 5x5 hard puzzles)
)>
)> martin
)
) I see this month's record is just 6.73 secs for a hard 5x5 puzzle, so you've
) a little improving to go before you're up there with the elite performers!
) (Well that applies to me too! :-)
)
) But seriously - I can't imaging being able to click anywhere near fast
) enough to complete a solution that quickly, even if I knew the solution in
) advance - they must be using some interface other than a regular mouse I
) think.
)
) Anyway, I like these puzzles too, and can assure you you get much quicker
) with practice as you recognise more set patterns, and become better at
) visualising possible continuations - with a 5x5 puzzle it's not hard to
) visualise the entire solution once the easy edges are filled in, so you
) won't be taking 20-30 mins for very long, I think.
)
) (But 6.73 seconds, blimey! :-)
6.73 is ridiculously fast indeed.
However, under a minute, even on the hard 5x5 one, is quite doable.
The easy 5x5 is doable in half a minute or so.
SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT
Martin DeMello
<news.dead.person.sto...@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:
>
> Anyway, I like these puzzles too, and can assure you you get much quicker
> with practice as you recognise more set patterns, and become better at
> visualising possible continuations - with a 5x5 puzzle it's not hard to
> visualise the entire solution once the easy edges are filled in, so you
> won't be taking 20-30 mins for very long, I think.
yeah, i got the 7x7 hard down to 6-8 minutes. the 10x10 normal is
still kicking my ass though.
> (But 6.73 seconds, blimey! :-)
anyone who does it in 6.73 seconds is quite frankly cheating, imnsho.
martin
Willem
) However, under a minute, even on the hard 5x5 one, is quite doable.
) The easy 5x5 is doable in half a minute or so.
You see, there is a lot of pattern recognition going on.
After a while you start to see the same things returning over and over.
Willem
) On Dec 14, 12:48�am, "Mike Terry"
)<news.dead.person.sto...@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote:
)> Anyway, I like these puzzles too, and can assure you you get much quicker
)> with practice as you recognise more set patterns, and become better at
)> visualising possible continuations - with a 5x5 puzzle it's not hard to
)> visualise the entire solution once the easy edges are filled in, so you
)> won't be taking 20-30 mins for very long, I think.
)
) yeah, i got the 7x7 hard down to 6-8 minutes. the 10x10 normal is
) still kicking my ass though.
How is that ? Larger size just adds more time, eventually, doesn't it ?
) anyone who does it in 6.73 seconds is quite frankly cheating, imnsho.
Solving a rubik's cube in 15 seconds is also real and doable..
But the 2 second delay between hitting 'ready' and getting the result makes
me quite suspicious of such times.
Martin DeMello
> Martin DeMello wrote:
> )
> ) yeah, i got the 7x7 hard down to 6-8 minutes. the 10x10 normal is
> ) still kicking my ass though.
>
> How is that ? Larger size just adds more time, eventually, doesn't it ?
No, as Mike noted, it gets harder to hold the entire solution in your
mind at once. There's a lot of local optimisation and then furious
backtracking as the grid gets larger.
martin
Willem
) On Dec 15, 12:43�am, Willem <wil...@stack.nl> wrote:
)> Martin DeMello wrote:
)> )
)> ) yeah, i got the 7x7 hard down to 6-8 minutes. the 10x10 normal is
)>
)> How is that ? �Larger size just adds more time, eventually, doesn't it ?
)
) No, as Mike noted, it gets harder to hold the entire solution in your
) mind at once. There's a lot of local optimisation and then furious
) backtracking as the grid gets larger.
)
) martin
Oh, I see. It seems we use quite different techniques to solve the grids.
I usually don't keep more than 2x2 or so in my head at once, and that's
only after I've filled in all the 'certains' that follow directly from the
patterns of numbers (and prior certains).
Examples (fixedwidth):
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
3 3 3
. . . . . . . . .
3
. . . . . . . . .
3
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
3 2
. . . . . . . . .
The diagonal chain of 3's leads to four certain lines,
as does the horizontal row of 3's.
The 3 in the corner is obvious, but the 2 in the corner also forces
2 lines. There are a few more patterns like that.
And then there's the 2's interesting property that a line entering from one
point implies there must be a line exiting from the diagonally opposite
point.