Rule of Thumb for Splitting Game Board?

angelleung

There's probably no hard and fast rule for determining whether it's more beneficial to devote time upfront to splitting a game board into different scenarios, but I am wondering what people consider and what factors really convince top test-takers to split it as such. I haven't gotten into the habit of it and so far, I don't think it has been detrimental. When it comes to really complicated games, such as the notorious dinosaur game (PT 57), JY took the time to flesh the master board into 6 different scenarios. How do I know when to do this? I'm not very good at making this call and one of my biggest fears is ultimately wasting the time I spend on inferences upfront (in the form of extra boards, not just inferences in general).

NYC12345

Complete multiple games on a daily basis and you will develop a strategy that works for you. There is no rule. Everyone is different.

angelleung

@alexandergreene93 Is it acceptable/can someone still perform very well on LG despite never splitting, then?

NYC12345

Yes. I get -0 on nearly every LG section and I rarely split the board. I just make boards for each question.

c.janson35

Right, it only matters at which stage you wish you allocate your time. You can do so at the beginning by splitting up worlds, or you can take the approach that @alexandergreene93 takes, which is essentially "splitting" (if you allow me this flexibility with language) the board for each question that requires it. Personally, I nearly always split my game boards up when I see that a split can be fruitful because I am of the opinion that doing so makes the questions go by much faster, especially global MBT, CBT, and MBF questions. And when you're rolling through the questions it's great for your confidence because you feel like you're doing less "work." But there's no single way that's The Way, and there's potential disadvantages for each.

On splitting at the beginning: if you choose to split and it doesn't get you anywhere, then the time spent could be largely wasted (although more time at the beginning better familiarizes yourself with the rules which I would argue makes their application in future questions faster and more efficient). Also, when you get in the habit of rolling through the questions because you have awesome split game boards on nearly every game you encounter, your confidence in a game in which you can't split and produce inferences can take a steep drop. This happens to me some times because I'm used to really moving through games, so if there's one that I have to drive through by continually applying the rules to each question, I start questioning my approach. Sometimes that's just what a game calls for though, so just keeping that in mind can probably counteract any empty-game-board panic at the outset. More than anything, a fruitful split of the games, especially when you can do so throughout the section, can reallyyyy save time. Sometimes I finish all 4 games in 20ish minutes, and that's thanks to splitting.

On not splitting, and making game boards for each question: it can just be more time consuming, and can especially make open-ended questions more difficult. While this may not be an issue for some people that have a great grasp on the game, I suspect that it can cause increasing levels of doubt/anxiety for questions where things aren't nicely falling into place. I also think it's easier to think of various rules' implications to fully flesh out inferences at the beginning of the game without the extra pressure/judgment that can come when you are trying.to.finish.one.impossible.question. But, that's just me. Alexandergreene looks like he's killing the game sections, so his way is definitely viable! And good!


To finish it off, here's a couple notes about when to split if that's the route you choose:

1. When a variable is limited to only 2 spots. I split these rules up almost invariably because it can often unlock other inferences as rules interact with it.

2. When 1 variable has many rules attached to it, with consequent implications for the other variables. This happens a lot in in-and-out games, where one variable has a lot of enemies, for example.

3. In grouping games when the slots aren't fixed, I try my best to have multiple game boards so that I have, for example, 3 scenarios of completely fixed spots. This allows me to fill in slots in each diagram, and I try to fill in slots whenever I can. Even if the only thing I get from this is the psychological boost of "hey there's not that many unknowns" it helps. Also, cutting down the number of variables you have to worry about is huge.

4. In sequencing games I like to split up the chained rule-diagrams that I have when applying compound sequencing rules, or conditional sequencing rules, rather than having one chain and a remaining rule or two.

Really, the biggest "rule" I follow is, if splitting into 2 or 3 (or less often 4 but very rarely more than this, and only 4 when I know A LOT of inferences will follow) boards can allow me to really fill out one of them, then I do it. Especially because in splitting you can start eliminating possibilities about where variables can go in other rules (when you operate under certain assumptions for each world, for example), and also because you can often make many rules irrelevant in different rules so that you have more floating variables to deal with. Rendering varIables as random is always helpful because you are no longer encumbered by neither the rules nor the doubt that sometimes comes along with applying them.


The 2 games types that I split the least frequently are simple conditional-in-and-out games where the rules chain nicely together, and sequencing games when the rules chain nicely together. Once I have this, I move onto the questions and adopt a question driven approach because everything is laid out nicely for me.

Finally, I should also mention that these "rules" are largely applied subconsciously now, and feel more like intuition than things I have to think about. With enough practice, this should happen for you too.


Hope this helps! And whatever method you choose, good luck!

LKmusic91

Along with 7Sage, I worked with a private tutor and something he taught me really rang true to me. If you say to yourself, "X can go here OR there", that is a good sign that you should split the game board. The emphasis is on the word "OR". This "OR" can be explicitly stated in a rule or can come from an inference you may make by combining rules. Hope this helps!