Solving board games

Martin01

When doing games, I like to attempt to solve as many probabilities as possible before going on to the questions. In short, spend time upfront in order to save time when answering questions.

However, after doing four or more boards, I begin to realize that there are too many probabilities to solve in order to complete the game in a good time.

My question is, are there any clues to look out for to help me not attempt to solve all probabilities?

How can you tell that it is not better to try to solve everything up front????

MrSamIam

Ideally, you want to attempt to solve for possibilities when you can split the board.
Often, you'll find rules that basically tell you that there are only a few worlds. For instance, "K must be in 1 or 5." This allows for 2 possible worlds; one where K is in 1, and one where K is in 5.

In regard to solving for all worlds, look for the following:
1) Splitting the board should allow you to make significant inferences. If you notice that splitting the board will only allow you to place 2 of 8 variables and 3 of 8 variables, then it likely isn't worth splitting. Thus, it likely isn't worth trying to solve for all possibilities - because, well...you can't.

2) Restrictive rules are a good indicator. Boxed items for instance may only allow for a few possible worlds. Box items with other rules (think: sequencing) attached to them limit the possibilities even further. This combination often makes a game worthy of splitting.

Also remember one thing: Just because you split the game board and realized that you couldn't really solve for all worlds, doesn't mean you wasted time. Doing so allows for:
1) A better understanding of how the pieces of the game interact
2) Premade boards. You'll likely encounter a question that will allow you to use one of your "useless" splits. Simply number the split board with it's corresponding question, and avoid redrawing next to the question.

danielznelson

I've solved for as many as six worlds before, though this has only been on exceptional occasions - usually harder games that have questions that would otherwise force you to meticulously draw out several game boards to find the correct answer choice. Even though I typically don't solve for all worlds (as games more often than not do not allow it), it is still very helpful to split without having solved for all possibilities. In cases where there are two rules with "either/or", for example, I always split. For example:

A is either 1st or 3rd
B is either 4th or 5th

These two rules alone form your four game boards to work with, and even though you haven't solved the four worlds, you at least have their respective templates.

Similarly, you could form a few boards with rules like this:

A is either 2nd or 3rd (of say, 5 slots)
B is either before both C and D, or after both C and D

In this case, you could place A 2nd with B; C/D; D/C, respectively, in the following slots

Also, you could place A 2nd with B 1st and C & D hovering over 3-5

A could be placed 3rd with B 1st or 2nd and C and D 4th and 5th

Alternatively, A could be placed 3rd with B 1st, C/D 2nd, and C/D 4th or 5th

In either of these scenarios, you certainly haven't solved for all four worlds, but you don't really have to, especially if the other rules are broad and hard to pin down. I think a good rule of thumb in my experience is to not exceed four boards, unless the questions and game are exceptional in that they seem to warrant it. When in doubt, at least nail down what are often the two foundational rules that can help you build several half-complete templates.

If there are, however, several rules that seem to be irrelevant to each other and comprise what seems to be a game with a lot of questions, it is often beneficial to try to solve for as much as you can. Doing this is beneficial for a variety of reasons, but nailing down one rule inevitably narrows the possibilities for the other rules, thus making the relationship between them all much more relevant. With this in mind, if you've gone beyond six boards with no end in sight, or better yet, if you know solving for all worlds will require more than six boards (which is unlikely), it would probably be a good idea to stop there. As @MrSamlam notes, completing what may seem to be extraneous game boards isn't all that bad, especially because they likely did not take much time. In some of the more difficult games, you may get lucky in finding clarity through one of those boards when attempting to answer a question, though that certainly isn't something to count on, haha.

Regardless, you'll get a feel for splitting. You'll also quickly bounce back from excessive experimentation. Both come with time spent in consistent practice.

runiggyrun

There are always going to be substantially more possible worlds than what the rules will allow you to determine, so I don't think it's beneficial to try and solve for every possible world.
Rather than try to completely solve x many boards, I try to split along certain rules, then fill in the slots that are determined by the interaction with the other rules. Then information given in the questions usually fits neatly in some but not other boards.

Games/rules that are good candidates for splitting:
1. Rules like A can be in 1st or last slot; or 3rd slot is A or B. I always draw two boards - sometimes other rules come and interact nicely, so you get a few more inferences, sometimes you just end up with two boards with a lone filled slot.
2. In/out games with biconditionals, especially when there's more than one biconditional. (N<-->/M and P<-->/Q) These usually allow for splitting into 4 boards, with most of them very close to completely solved.

3. Restrictive "number" rules, like the one about twice as many people see the Hitchcock compared to the Fellini (there was also Kurasawa) You have only 7 people total, so you split 1:2:4 F:H:K or 2:4:1 F:H:K; The first game in June07 would also fall in this category.

4. Games where you have a hunch that there's a very limited number of possibilities -like the mulch and stone game where the bed can be cleaned a maximum of 3 times; or the game where there are three teams and you know A finishes before B (ABC, ACB, CAB split); or the game where interns were switched through some rotations according to three different rules.

5. Games where splitting would get rid of a rule that is tricky to remember and apply (like the game with 5 shows, of which 4 were 30 minutes and 1 was 1hr). I couldn't keep track of the scheduling until I placed down the 1hr show in the spots allowed by the rules.

6. Big "chunk" rules (especially for double layer sequencing) where you end up with only a couple of possibilities for placing the "chunk" (like the game with the 4 songs played on 4 instruments where you are told that Song A, keyboard song and song B are consecutive. There's only two ways that can go on a four slot board. The rest of the rules split in another two boards.

I'm sure there are others where splitting would be beneficial, but I think for some games it comes down to personal preference. Lots of practice will sharpen your intuition of when splitting would be warranted, but it's often not a black and white choice.