Hi, I've got this down to 10 moves max. Hope this helps someone
First 3 moves cover 5 squares each:
_ x _ _ _ _
x 1 x _ x _
_ x x x 3 x
_ x 2 x x _
_ _ x _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
Next 4 moves cover 4 squares each:
_ x x 4 x _
x 1 x x x _
_ x x x 3 x
x x 2 x x x
5 x x x x 7
x _ x 6 x x
If you haven't found the gem in these 31 squares / 7 moves, you can finish the board in 3 more moves:
x x x 4 x x
8 1 x x x 9
x x x x 3 x
x x 2 x x x
5 x x x x 7
x 0 x 6 x x
I'd be keen to know if anyone's found a solution to cover the board in less than 10 moves
Wow, you are correct! This is basically the same as what I posted above, but I missed that you can knock it down to 10 by testing the square in between the two blanks instead of testing them individually. Nice work!
Typed up a quick Google Doc that hopefully explains the 10 shovel solution in a bit more detail. Link is in my signature as posting it within the thread is against forum rules.
Worst case scenario: didn't hit gem until 16th shovel. Can't see any here that I shouldn't have dug ?
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.)
Hi, I've got this down to 10 moves max. Hope this helps someone
First 3 moves cover 5 squares each:
_ x _ _ _ _
x 1 x _ x _
_ x x x 3 x
_ x 2 x x _
_ _ x _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
Next 4 moves cover 4 squares each:
_ x x 4 x _
x 1 x x x _
_ x x x 3 x
x x 2 x x x
5 x x x x 7
x _ x 6 x x
If you haven't found the gem in these 31 squares / 7 moves, you can finish the board in 3 more moves:
x x x 4 x x
8 1 x x x 9
x x x x 3 x
x x 2 x x x
5 x x x x 7
x 0 x 6 x x
I'd be keen to know if anyone's found a solution to cover the board in less than 10 moves
Mine's just a slight modification to what you have.:
0 x x 4 x 9
x 1 x x x x
x x x x 3 x
7 x 2 x x x
x x x x x 6
x 5 x 8 x x
There are some shifts that can be made (e.g., number 9 can be at either position without changing the result). The main thing I see is that your #8 has to be placed on a spot that has already been ruled out, which seems a little less efficient. I'm sure there are some other little tweaks that can be made to mine, too.
Hi, I've got this down to 10 moves max. Hope this helps someone
First 3 moves cover 5 squares each:
_ x _ _ _ _
x 1 x _ x _
_ x x x 3 x
_ x 2 x x _
_ _ x _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
Next 4 moves cover 4 squares each:
_ x x 4 x _
x 1 x x x _
_ x x x 3 x
x x 2 x x x
5 x x x x 7
x _ x 6 x x
If you haven't found the gem in these 31 squares / 7 moves, you can finish the board in 3 more moves:
x x x 4 x x
8 1 x x x 9
x x x x 3 x
x x 2 x x x
5 x x x x 7
x 0 x 6 x x
I'd be keen to know if anyone's found a solution to cover the board in less than 10 moves
Mine's just a slight modification to what you have.:
0 x x 4 x 9
x 1 x x x x
x x x x 3 x
7 x 2 x x x
x x x x x 6
x 5 x 8 x x
There are some shifts that can be made (e.g., number 9 can be at either position without changing the result). The main thing I see is that your #8 has to be placed on a spot that has already been ruled out, which seems a little less efficient. I'm sure there are some other little tweaks that can be made to mine, too.
Nice work, this is indeed a slightly more efficient solution. Your square 7 has only two adjacent squares to be checked instead of three, and square 8 is a possible gem location instead of being known to be ruled out already.
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
~Always be Designing~
Don't increase the Item Limit? Then I don't play. Period.
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 you're missing the point. The maps are all about solving the puzzle by using the least amount of shovels possible.
I would like to thank everyone who's contributed and I would also like to say that I've used the maps and had pretty spectacular results so far. Solved 3 maps and using 17 shovels on my last round.
Great discussion here, by "solving" this it will save us all shovels and get us the prizes faster. It's just so hard to remember, I may need to keep all my day's shovels for when I can get to a computer to follow the step by step instructions!
For now I'll be adopting the @HappyGamer73 algorithm until anyone finds a more efficient way.
Replies
x5xx9x
xxx1xx
6xxxx4
xx2xxx
0xxx3x
x7xx8x
First 3 moves cover 5 squares each:
_ x _ _ _ _
x 1 x _ x _
_ x x x 3 x
_ x 2 x x _
_ _ x _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
Next 4 moves cover 4 squares each:
_ x x 4 x _
x 1 x x x _
_ x x x 3 x
x x 2 x x x
5 x x x x 7
x _ x 6 x x
If you haven't found the gem in these 31 squares / 7 moves, you can finish the board in 3 more moves:
x x x 4 x x
8 1 x x x 9
x x x x 3 x
x x 2 x x x
5 x x x x 7
x 0 x 6 x x
I'd be keen to know if anyone's found a solution to cover the board in less than 10 moves
Wow, you are correct! This is basically the same as what I posted above, but I missed that you can knock it down to 10 by testing the square in between the two blanks instead of testing them individually. Nice work!
Awesome! Thanks for sharing.
We realize that but shovels are limited and figuring out the most efficient way to find the gem will allow us to get more materials.
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.)
Mine's just a slight modification to what you have.:
0 x x 4 x 9
x 1 x x x x
x x x x 3 x
7 x 2 x x x
x x x x x 6
x 5 x 8 x x
There are some shifts that can be made (e.g., number 9 can be at either position without changing the result). The main thing I see is that your #8 has to be placed on a spot that has already been ruled out, which seems a little less efficient. I'm sure there are some other little tweaks that can be made to mine, too.
Nice work, this is indeed a slightly more efficient solution. Your square 7 has only two adjacent squares to be checked instead of three, and square 8 is a possible gem location instead of being known to be ruled out already.
Both of you are now to blame for my excessive shovel purchases.
I think you're missing the point. The maps are all about solving the puzzle by using the least amount of shovels possible.
I would like to thank everyone who's contributed and I would also like to say that I've used the maps and had pretty spectacular results so far. Solved 3 maps and using 17 shovels on my last round.
For now I'll be adopting the @HappyGamer73 algorithm until anyone finds a more efficient way.
Thanks!