|
On February 22 2012 17:11 Milestone wrote:
*shrug* Just guess and move on. Getting worked up over one minesweeper game is just silly.
I think that getting worked up over anything can be called silly <.<
But Theorycrafting and logically connecting information to solve puzzles is something that is done on TL since years. Its been done almost to perfection and I wanted to do the same here. Getting better in SC2 and Minesweeper or anything else ... maybe thats silly to you idc. Maybe I just dont really know what you wanted to achieve with your comment so I dont know what to answer to this but well... improving is not everyones goal I guess ;D
I had fun today
|
I'll give you a hint for future games
if you ever see something along a wall like
[O][1 ][2][1][O]
[A][B][C][D][E]
Where O is any opened square (not a mine), C will almost always be safe and B and D will be mines, this can help you quickly break into a flat wall that you otherwise would have to think really hard about.
|
It could also be "B" and "D" though kdgns ;X
Or is there any other reason that its "C" more often than "B" and "D" ? (something like the random lvl generator or something)
|
On February 22 2012 20:16 Daumen wrote:
It could also be "B" and "D" though kdgns ;X
Or is there any other reason that its "C" more often than "B" and "D" ? (something like the random lvl generator or something)
Thats the trick, at first glance you think that B, C, or D are all equally likely but suppose it was B that was safe, then either A or C is the mine for the leftmost 1.
Suppose A was a mine, then C would have to be safe, but theres a problem, the 2 in the middle no longer has enough squares to put 2 mines, so it is not possible to be A
What if C was a mine? then the 2 in the middle would require D would be a mine as well, but the rightmost 1 would have 2 mines on it if this was the case, again C can not be a mine.
Thus, B must be the mine, C is safe, and D is another mine.
A similar argument can be made for the other side, by symmetry.
This pattern is actually pretty robust, if there is a mine above the 2, the reasoning for why A can't be a mine is not valid, but notice that even if A was a mine, C is still safe. So, when seeing a 121 pattern, clicking the block under the 2 is a very safe move. however if there is a mine above the 2 the 1s to the side of it would be satisfied anyway, and that wall can be cleared anyway.
|
I still remember the first time I beat expert (as other said, luck was needed) 
|
Can you beat this game without "guessing"?. If not then there's no reason to try.
|
Lalalaland34507 Posts
There is. There sometimes is guesswork involved, but it is no different from any other game. Do you always know if a reaver shot will kill all the scvs or nothing at all?
The point of minesweeper is to be able to minimise the risks or the guesses you need to take, and to make the correct decisions as quickly as possible. Feel free to look on YouTube for minesweeper world records - I assure you that those people did not fluke their way into the record books.
|
Minesweeper is awesome!
But please don't use the Windows 7 version, it is absolutely horrible. Get Minesweeper X here, or Minesweeper Clone here. I think I'm gonna keep saying this every time I see a minesweeper thread.
Besides that, you will almost always have to guess when solving Expert, it's part of the game unfortunately.
Edit: If you are gonna guess, do it intelligently. Neither of your guesses were. Personally, in this situation I would have clicked one of the top squares of the bottom chunk, because that would have allowed me to further solve that chunk if I didn't click a mine.
Edit2: Holy crap, 14836 seconds. You must have been working on this one a really long time :p.
|
Lalalaland34507 Posts
Minesweeper arbiter is another alternative.
|
Yeah and VSweeper, but I like the two I mentioned the best.
|
Apparently MInesweeper has Xbox 360 controller support, I was playing with a wired controller plugged into my computer and when I hit a mine it started rumbling on my desk. It scared the shit out of me.
|
On February 22 2012 22:05 bartus88 wrote:Minesweeper is awesome! But please don't use the Windows 7 version, it is absolutely horrible. Get Minesweeper X here, or Minesweeper Clone here. I think I'm gonna keep saying this every time I see a minesweeper thread. Besides that, you will almost always have to guess when solving Expert, it's part of the game unfortunately. Edit: If you are gonna guess, do it intelligently. Neither of your guesses were. Personally, in this situation I would have clicked one of the top squares of the bottom chunk, because that would have allowed me to further solve that chunk if I didn't click a mine. Edit2: Holy crap, 14836 seconds. You must have been working on this one a really long time :p.
What is the difference between these Minesweeper versions?
The guesses were safe and gave me very little information, didnt want to take the 50/50 chances but you are right... The thing is I didnt sleep that night and I was so tired I guess I stopped taking this game "serious" and wanted to get the hell on with it.
|
Denmark697 Posts
Minesweeper X is one of the best versions out there. It has anti cheat features and a replay system.
I know this isn't about competitive minesweepering, but its solid, and can emulate the xp minesweeper (best, fastest and supirior colour and layout choises(Other versions can be confusing)).
Solving an expert board is not that hard tbh. It just requires that you figure out the special logic of minesweeper. The most important logical step is what I like to call the "pseudo mine".
Basically you ask the question: If there is (not) a mine on X, will the numbers add up? In the example with the 121 wall, you ask if there is a mine under the 2, as this will satisfy the two 1's but leave the 2 without a second mine, the answer is: NO there cannot be a mine there.
Other formations you can solve are variations on the 3-2 cup:
[X][ 3][ 2][X]
[A][B][C][D]
[X]
[X][ 4][ 2][X]
[A][B][C][D]
_______ [X]
[X][ 3][ 3][X]
[A][B][C][D]
Where X are mines flagged and A, B, C and D are unclicked fields. In this scenario (very common one) A has a mine and D has no mine (B and C are ambigious). This is deducted by asking "what if there is a mine on D" AND "what if there is no mine on A"
If you can use those questions to prove there is a mine on A and none on D, you should be able to easily beat an expert board in 3-4 tries (after using the same logic on other problems)
Here are some other formations easily solvable with this logic:
[1][ 2][ 2][1]
[A][B][C][D]
[2][ 1][ 2]
[A][B][C]
_____[E]
[1][ 4][D]
[A][B][C]
[1][ 3][D]
[A][B][C]
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
