Excavation Site Gems

I believe it will always be an 'x' formation, however for obvious reasons parts will be removed when the gems are up against the sides. So I tap corner then every three in both directions, then turn the corner and repeat. This way I will typically find the gems in a maximum of 10 shovels if I have to go further into thee interior, but most of the time sooner.

"KILLAchievement;c-1623170" wrote:
I believe it will always be an 'x' formation, however for obvious reasons parts will be removed when the gems are up against the sides. So I tap corner then every three in both directions, then turn the corner and repeat. This way I will typically find the gems in a maximum of 10 shovels if I have to go further into thee interior, but most of the time sooner.

Yes, it is still the "x" shape (t shape) - we're just out of squares. Thinking of it in three shapes helps me "visualize" what I'm looking for and eliminate squares to dig in though.

Thank you - For efficiency, yours is more efficient. This is what I was doing and it takes a max of 14 squares.

1. 4 "middle" squares
http://i.imgur.com/jzWqethl.png

2. 2 Centre diagonal squares.
http://i.imgur.com/ketl1GDl.png

3. 4 "Border/edge" squares
http://i.imgur.com/13NQwROl.png

4. 3 Corner squares + 1 win
http://i.imgur.com/2QyKKdhl.png

Yeah it's pretty much minesweeper. :|

@KILLAchievement just trying to make sure I'm following what you're doing. Doesn't look like I follow...

"KILLAchievement;c-1623170" wrote:
I believe it will always be an 'x' formation, however for obvious reasons parts will be removed when the gems are up against the sides. So I tap corner then every three in both directions, then turn the corner and repeat. This way I will typically find the gems in a maximum of 10 shovels if I have to go further into thee interior, but most of the time sooner.

Are you doing this (un-numbered squares are my guess for interior moves)
http://i.imgur.com/utc4aR8l.png

Edit: See Page 2 of thread for solutions with 10 squares maximum needed to find gem!
This is an extremely awesome logic problem to figure out! I have figured out a pattern in which you can be guaranteed to find the gem by testing no more than 12 squares. Using the following squares for your first 8 choices, the squares marked with an x are adjacent to one of the first 8 and only 4 squares are not adjacent to one of your first 8 choices (these are denoted by o).

5xoxx6
xxx1xx
x2xxxo
oxxx3x
xx4xxx
7xxox8

Once you find a rock during your first 8 choices, you can just check adjacent squares until you find the gem. By saving the corner squares until last, in this case you would need to check a maximum of 10 squares to find it if you don't find a rock until choice 8.

If you don't find any rocks in the first 8 squares, then you'll just need to check the 4 squares marked with an 'o' in the diagram in order to find the gem in one of those 4. So a maximum of 12 needed overall - will be interested to see if anyone can do better than this!

Edit: Have figured out several other patterns that use a maximum of 12 squares, but can't do better than that so far...

Got it to 10 moves max (0 instead of 10 for spacing)

x 3 x x 2 x
9 x x x 0 x
x x 1 x x x
8 x x x x 7
x x x 6 x x
x 4 x x 5 x

"teo47;c-1623210" wrote:
This is an extremely awesome logic problem to figure out! I have figured out a pattern in which you can be guaranteed to find the gem by testing no more than 12 squares. Using the following squares for your first 8 choices, the squares marked with an x are adjacent to one of the first 8 and only 4 squares are not adjacent to one of your first 8 choices (these are denoted by o).

5xoxx6
xxx1xx
x2xxxo
oxxx3x
xx4xxx
7xxox8

Once you find a rock during your first 8 choices, you can just check adjacent squares until you find the gem. By saving the corner squares until last, in this case you would need to check a maximum of 10 squares to find it if you don't find a rock until choice 8.

If you don't find any rocks in the first 8 squares, then you'll just need to check the 4 squares marked with an 'o' in the diagram in order to find the gem in one of those 4. So a maximum of 12 needed overall - will be interested to see if anyone can do better than this!

Edit: Have figured out several other patterns that use a maximum of 12 squares, but can't do better than that so far...

Nice! Here's a pic of what you discuss
http://i.imgur.com/eQtO97I.png

"nissa762;c-1623223" wrote:

"teo47;c-1623210" wrote:
This is an extremely awesome logic problem to figure out! I have figured out a pattern in which you can be guaranteed to find the gem by testing no more than 12 squares. Using the following squares for your first 8 choices, the squares marked with an x are adjacent to one of the first 8 and only 4 squares are not adjacent to one of your first 8 choices (these are denoted by o).

5xoxx6
xxx1xx
x2xxxo
oxxx3x
xx4xxx
7xxox8

Once you find a rock during your first 8 choices, you can just check adjacent squares until you find the gem. By saving the corner squares until last, in this case you would need to check a maximum of 10 squares to find it if you don't find a rock until choice 8.

If you don't find any rocks in the first 8 squares, then you'll just need to check the 4 squares marked with an 'o' in the diagram in order to find the gem in one of those 4. So a maximum of 12 needed overall - will be interested to see if anyone can do better than this!

Edit: Have figured out several other patterns that use a maximum of 12 squares, but can't do better than that so far...

Nice! Here's a pic of what you discuss
http://i.imgur.com/eQtO97I.png

Thanks for the pic! I was having a hard time picturing the pattern. The picture must be different for the 10-move one by Infinte_jests?

"Surfcitygal;c-1623224" wrote:

"nissa762;c-1623223" wrote:

"teo47;c-1623210" wrote:
This is an extremely awesome logic problem to figure out! I have figured out a pattern in which you can be guaranteed to find the gem by testing no more than 12 squares. Using the following squares for your first 8 choices, the squares marked with an x are adjacent to one of the first 8 and only 4 squares are not adjacent to one of your first 8 choices (these are denoted by o).

5xoxx6
xxx1xx
x2xxxo
oxxx3x
xx4xxx
7xxox8

Once you find a rock during your first 8 choices, you can just check adjacent squares until you find the gem. By saving the corner squares until last, in this case you would need to check a maximum of 10 squares to find it if you don't find a rock until choice 8.

If you don't find any rocks in the first 8 squares, then you'll just need to check the 4 squares marked with an 'o' in the diagram in order to find the gem in one of those 4. So a maximum of 12 needed overall - will be interested to see if anyone can do better than this!

Edit: Have figured out several other patterns that use a maximum of 12 squares, but can't do better than that so far...

Nice! Here's a pic of what you discuss
http://i.imgur.com/eQtO97I.png

Thanks for the pic! I was having a hard time picturing the pattern. The picture must be different for the 10-move one by Infinte_jests?

Yep, I need the pics too :)

Missed that post for 10 moves completely. If someone else doesn't beat me to it, I'll make a pic for that one tomorrow.

"infinite_jests;c-1623214" wrote:
Got it to 10 moves max (0 instead of 10 for spacing)

x 3 x x 2 x
9 x x x 0 x
x x 1 x x x
8 x x x x 7
x x x 6 x x
x 4 x x 5 x

I think this is actually 13, since you might need to check the 3 adjacent squares around the 10th choice if it is the first rock you find. By switching your 9 and 0 I believe it takes it down to a maximum of 12 needed, since all of the adjacent squares around what you have marked as 9 would have been checked already by the time you get there. Then the worst case scenario is that you find a rock on the new move 9 (your move 0) and have to check all 3 adjacent squares for a total of 12 moves.