Excavation Site Gems

"HappyGamer73;c-1623580" wrote:

"tapperino_forums;c-1623572" wrote:

"meinaz;c-1623448" wrote:


Look at the order @davejandals posted above. It is the most efficient way to find the gem. You want to space out the holes so each square is only checked by one hole instead of multiple. (Hopefully that makes sense.)

Thanks, yes. I drew out happygamer73's version, as it is slightly more efficient. And if you alter the sequence it's easier to remember and do - as in effect it is chess moves of a knight all the way up to include 8, and then 9 and 10 in the last two corners.

http://i.imgur.com/aJqrQa7.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/KricXmi.jpg

Thanks for drawing it out. I would say, though, that the first is slightly better just on a statistical basis since it covers more area at the start, so it's more likely to get the gem earlier, using fewer shovels.

LOL looks like several of us had the same thought at the same time. Amazing. The geek factor in the forum is awesome today.

I just attempted these so called methods on mine. None of them worked. I'm now out of shovels because of it. My theory of it being completely random is still sound.

"jtgroth;c-1623587" wrote:


I haven't done the math yet on long term averages. This is just a gut feeling about what that math might reveal.

The long term average for HappyGamer73's best strategy so far, in his order as he posted it, is 6.056 shovels per round. I will look later at if it changes anything or how much it changes to start with the outside squares and work in.

The probability calculation was a bit easier than I originally thought it would be, given that the initial placement of the gem is random and it's more or less just a process of figuring out how many squares it would take to find the gem in each of the 36 possible starting points. Average together those 36 numbers and there you have it.

"1pillform;c-1623591" wrote:
I just attempted these so called methods on mine. None of them worked. I'm now out of shovels because of it. My theory of it being completely random is still sound.

I am not sure what you mean they aren't working. I have been using them and found them to be helpful. There were a couple times where I got to the 8th try before finding stones but most of the time I found them in the first few and then had to search from there.

"1pillform;c-1623591" wrote:
I just attempted these so called methods on mine. None of them worked. I'm now out of shovels because of it. My theory of it being completely random is still sound.

It is completely random, nobody here denies that. Again, we're just looking for the most efficient way possible. The current patterns gaurantee that you'll find the gem in 10 shovels. If you pick randomly, you could spend 20 or more, that's the point.

Imagine any square you pick first. It's empty. Now we know it's not that square or directly beside it. Would it make sense to pick one of these squares that you know doesn't contain the gem? Or would it make more sense to pick a new area where you can check a square and the 4 new spots beside it? The latter, of course. These patterns try to maximize this by spacing out your picks to cover area faster.

"1pillform;c-1623591" wrote:
I just attempted these so called methods on mine. None of them worked. I'm now out of shovels because of it. My theory of it being completely random is still sound.

You went through ten shovels following this exact pattern and didn't uncover any stones? If you uncover the grey stones then you stop the pattern and click around the stones to find the gems.


I've done this four times now - it's worked every time - and my average is five shovels to gem.

"infinite_jests;c-1623603" wrote:

"1pillform;c-1623591" wrote:
I just attempted these so called methods on mine. None of them worked. I'm now out of shovels because of it. My theory of it being completely random is still sound.

You went through ten shovels following this exact pattern and didn't uncover any stones? If you uncover the grey stones then you stop the pattern and click around the stones to find the gems.


I've done this four times now - it's worked every time - and my average is five shovels to gem.

My guess is he/she isn't aware that a rock indicates that the gem is in an adjacent square. If you don't realize that, then any order of selection won't help at all!

"teo47;c-1623604" wrote:

"infinite_jests;c-1623603" wrote:

"1pillform;c-1623591" wrote:
I just attempted these so called methods on mine. None of them worked. I'm now out of shovels because of it. My theory of it being completely random is still sound.

You went through ten shovels following this exact pattern and didn't uncover any stones? If you uncover the grey stones then you stop the pattern and click around the stones to find the gems.


I've done this four times now - it's worked every time - and my average is five shovels to gem.

My guess is he/she isn't aware that a rock indicates that the gem is in an adjacent square. If you don't realize that, then any order of selection won't help at all!

I think that @1pillform is aware of this (see the post from the second page below):

"1pillform;c-1623510" wrote:
Pretty sure its random. You can discuss spaces or pretend to know when the next one will appear all you want but each one is random. I'm 99% sure of that. But yes its guaranteed to show up next to the "rock" you find. That I know for a fact. Making graphs is a waste of time lol

I think that maybe pillform is expecting to follow the pattern and find the gem exactly on one of the numbered squares, maybe in 3-4 tries as though it is a predictive series. Again, this is just a method of covering the area efficiently, there is no representation that there is a pattern to where the gem actually lies.

You are correct, I didn't read the initial post quite correctly. The point, of course, is that we can exploit the randomness of the process to achieve the best results over the long term.

"nissa762;c-1623588" wrote:

"HappyGamer73;c-1623580" wrote:

"tapperino_forums;c-1623572" wrote:

"meinaz;c-1623448" wrote:


Look at the order @davejandals posted above. It is the most efficient way to find the gem. You want to space out the holes so each square is only checked by one hole instead of multiple. (Hopefully that makes sense.)

Thanks, yes. I drew out happygamer73's version, as it is slightly more efficient. And if you alter the sequence it's easier to remember and do - as in effect it is chess moves of a knight all the way up to include 8, and then 9 and 10 in the last two corners.

http://i.imgur.com/aJqrQa7.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/KricXmi.jpg

Thanks for drawing it out. I would say, though, that the first is slightly better just on a statistical basis since it covers more area at the start, so it's more likely to get the gem earlier, using fewer shovels.

LOL looks like several of us had the same thought at the same time. Amazing. The geek factor in the forum is awesome today.

Aye, but alas, it seems people still do not understand perhaps a How To post is needed, perhaps step by step with instructions.

The math is simple and sound now that the shape and previous theories have been proven/disproved (egg on my face)
Yet others haven't fared as well.

Props to you for providing screenshots and numbered versions and to those who have created grids and done the maths, congrats, im too lazy to do it myself and equally so in writing anything down.

Now to check more theories, current one im working on:
are there 36 possible locations for the gem or a set number? You know like those old timey gameshows?

Simplifed:
Is this Jeopardy
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Jeopardy_game_board.png

OR Press your Luck?
http://images.mentalfloss.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_main_image/public/michael_larson_press_your_luck_5.jpg?itok=zg7qNLBz

In order to do this i will study all pictures and look at the placement of the gem, note its location and catalog it, and its coordinates.
Has one been found in square 1,1?
1,2?
So on and so on, it may be pointless and futile, but it does give me a rush of adrenaline.

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/be/bece3a9beb32c94e03ff204956aa80478e5efa6223c3988fefa8007407d9abb0.jpg