Guidelines for Splitting and NOT Splitting Boards

Quick Silver

After doing the Stained Glass game (PT 62, Game 2), then watching JY's explanation, I realized I made a major time-waste error when I split the game based on where I placed R....

It seemed like a good idea at the time... but I realize now that it would create 6 different boards...

Anyone have general guidelines on when to split and when not to split?

Is it worth doing simple stats to realize there would be 3x2=6 different gameboards and not worth it?

Are there other rules/guidelines anyone suggests?

lsatcommitted

im interested in this question as well. It seems to me that 6 is the limit for me. If i can split the game into 6 or less, then i will. More than that becomes too much.

polscken

For me its usually pretty obvious. I never split if I feel like there will be more than 3 boards to deal with. Too much going on on the page to make the time spent splitting worth it. I don't know if that is the right answer...its just what i do.

LouieRodriguez

I think the real question you should be asking is when to Master a game and when not to master a game. Splitting a game board is just a way of making your life easier. When the opportunity arises you have to just know to do it.

The only reason I would split a game board s if a rule said something like A in 1 then B in 4. So I'd make that diagram _ _ _ _ with A in 1 and B in 4.

Then I'd have another game board _ _ _ _ with A in 3 and B in 2 because that was the other option.

So I'd have two general game boards. Not highly diagrammed. and I would determine which world I'd be in and make the correct inferences upon what the question was asking. And I've found that a lot of the games that are the "masterable games" straight up give you a local rule within the question like "If C is in 4 what must be true."

I'm not a big fan of mastering. I feel like I'm prone to errors when writing out all the possibilities. I'd rather just work with each question at a time. I do like to have a general sense of what possibilities are available though. I may not completely master a game, but I may have different sets of diagrams, and I'll be consciously aware of the floaters that go with that particular diagram. It's usually the floaters or the out groups where many of the correct answer choices come from.

LouieRodriguez

But I think it's important to learn how to master a game. I've chosen not to use it only upon first learning it.

adrian.miko

I usually look at a few components when deciding if I should split or not:
These work best for basic linear as well as advanced linear games.

1) Numerical limitations ex- A is in 1 or 7. (Split A1 in one game, A7 in another)
2) Limited variable slots ex- Only 5 slots in a linear game
3) Power blocks - ex (N immediately precedes M) or (R must be between N and G) these put high restrictions on game template possibilities

For the hard games, if I see there are more than 6 possible templates, I don't even bother splitting the game boards

kraft.phillip

Louie, those aren't the only two possibilities in the scenario you described.

LouieRodriguez

Are you getting at the contrapositive? I didn't really put too much thought into it. Hopefully the theory of what I was getting at got across.

LouieRodriguez

Or maybe I meant to say A must be in 1 and B must be in 4 or B must be in 1 and A must be in 4.

That kind of rule gives you a clear reason to have two separate diagrams.