Ok this is a very difficult problem. Basically you're given 5 dice, and somehow, you have to figure out how many moves it takes to get to "checkmate". You don't even know what the condition is, but you can see the answer, and then can find an algorithm to determine checkmate.
Here's the things that gets me: there exists a completely nonmathematical, or at least not very mathematical approach to solving this problem, and it has to do with the title "Checkmate". And please don't cheat. There is a way to do so, but I won't even say how.
[ March 20, 2005, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Gosu ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
We had a variation on this theme a while ago, so I already kind of knew what I was looking for...
But I got it .
Edit: Neeeeeeeever mind. I didn't.
[ March 20, 2005, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :
The first one I rolled had the same answer as Petals around the Rose, but none of the others have. I don't know the answer yet.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
If you scroll down, it says it's based on PAtR.
*rolls again*
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
Talk about confusing source code O_O
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You'll notice a pattern, kai, if you look hard enough Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I just don't see a pattern that works. I see patterns, but not THE pattern.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Well, I know how to find the answer, but I don't know if its the pattern they were looking for as its a bit too thoughtful.
These things only really work if the pattern makes someone go "doh!" Otherwise its another rousing game of "guess the mathematical algorithm!"
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There's certainly nothing as elegant as the "Petal around the Rose" solution to this. I've got a method that's worked for about 30 straight, and I've confirmed it with a few selected dice combinations, but it doesn't mean anything.
Dagonee
Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :
Is the title as important here as it is in PAtR?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
So, Dag, it's more complicated than PatR? (Which, by the way , I did really quickly.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
OK, after examining the source code, my algorithm works, but there's at least one part that's just totally arbitrary. (The part done after the final numbers are selected.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It claims:
quote: This game is based on the "Petals Around the Rose" dice game. Both games are easy in the sense that once you know the "secret", you can easily determine the answer in seconds. After hearing of this game, I was able to figure out the secret immediately. Just remember, as in "Petals Around the Rose", the name of the game is important. Note however, you do not actually need to know anything about chess to figure out the secret. Good Luck! (some of you will need it, lol)
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
My brain is fried.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So, Dag, it's more complicated than PatR? (Which, by the way , I did really quickly.)
I don't think I've "solved" it. But yes, it's quite a bit more complicated to calculate the solution for each combination, at least to me.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Any chance that's deliberate? That is, that the person who programmed it came up with a tedious way to have it solve for the "obvious" answer, just to throw off people who read the source code?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Useful fact: You can manipulate it to tell you the answer of any die-roll combo you like. If you input numbers by hand and have it display answer, it will.
Of course, this has confirmed that my solution is wrong, and I keep getting answers that make even less sense than the ones I was getting randomly. >_<
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
This was how I confirmed the important fact that allowed me to deduce a solution. The algorithm in code is a very mechanistic and wasteful way to program what I came up with. But my solution is still really an algorithm, and nothing that can be summed up in a simple sentence like PatR. Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I've also being doing that, but really all I've been getting is parts of ideas, not the wholes.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
this stupid game is driving me crazy... Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
This is why I'm a history major and not a math major. My brain cannot handle anything more complicated than 1+1.
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
Positioning matters ....
2 2 2 2 1 isn't the same as 1 2 2 2 2
Yea...
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
What am I missing? I don't understand what this "checkmate" thing that it's talking about is. I'm supposed to figure out how long it takes to do something that I don't know what it is?
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
I don't know the answer either.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Well, I looked at the source code and figured out how it's done. But like Dagonee said, the last part is completely arbitrary as far as I can tell. And I have no idea how any of it relates to "checkmate".
I think this is even more frustrating than before. I can predict the outcome every time, but I don't know why I'm doing it, other than it works. Which means i need to figure out a different way to do it, the way they intended I guess.
[ March 21, 2005, 02:20 AM: Message edited by: Strider ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ok, let's look at this another way.
What does checkmate mean? It means "the king cannot escape" (so sayeth m-w).
And this is supposed to be related to PAtR.
Ok, yeah, this isn't helping. Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
yeah, but they tell you that you don't need to know anything about chess to figure it out.
So "checkmate" does not mean, checkmate in chess. but something to do with the words "check" and "mate" i'm guessing.
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
Ugh. I'm so right minded (I think that's the right lobe) I have trouble figuring out which way is North. You want me to start spitting out TS Eliot, sure, I'm your guy, but ask me to add the tip in my head or, God forbid, divide up the check, and you'll see the most uncomfortable look come over my face.
So, of course, this stuff is miles beyond me.
Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
It's "Checkmate!"
I had a thought that the ! meant it had something to do with the factorials? Just a surmise.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
SPOILERS! (Not the answer, just speculation) | | | | | | | | | V
The only thing that I can figure out that relates to checkmate is that if you have them set to all one, there are no more moves because the game is over.
Same goes for all of them set at the same number (or rather the first, the third and the fifth). One dot doesn't count.
[ March 21, 2005, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
not true Teshi.
All 3s the answer is 6.
And all 5s andthe answer is 12.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
All the dots but one on the first, the third and the fifth (the one's don't count).
But, if all the dice are set to 3, the number is the same (6). For some reason, those second and fourth dice only make a difference in certain instances or at certain numbers.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
try making the 2nd and 4th numbers larger than the 1,3,5 numbers and see if it's different. Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I've done that, but my mathematical deduction just fails. Sometimes it seems to be higher, sometimes lower, depending on the number and its position.
Posted by xnera (Member # 187) on :
The author is lurking here (or y'all are emailing comments to him) because some of your posts are appearing on the comments page.
Petals Around the Rose took me an embarrassing long time to solve. I don't have any insights on this one, yet.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
He's/She's lurking.
Edit:
quote: a completely nonmathematical, or at least not very mathematical
Hello, dice-game person. Which is it? Non-mathematical, like the Petals Around the Rose game, or "not very"?
[ March 21, 2005, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
are you sure they're lurking? Alot of those comments seemed similar to ones here, but not exactly.
And I'm sure with the number of people that have played this game, there have been many of the same type of comments.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Nope, two of my exactly copied comments appear there, complete with charming editor's notes:
quote: - We had a variation on this theme a while ago, so I already kind of knew what I was looking for... But I got it [Editor's Note: A few minutes later this post was edited:] Edit: Neeeeeeeever mind. I didn't.[Editor's Note: LOL]
-My brain is fried.
It's highly unlikely that some other person made exactly those two comments.
[ March 21, 2005, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
ahhh...good point.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
So yeah, we're clearly playing guinea pig roles here.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You got a shout-out, Teshi.
See, I keep punning on the name -- "checking" for "mates," and so forth -- but come up empty. We're not counting the number of pairs, or deviations from pairs, or the value of non-paired items, so I dunno.
[ March 21, 2005, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
POTENTIAL INFERENTIAL SPOILER FOR PETALS AROUND THE ROSE!
I kept trying to do something with "check" as in a check mark. Nothing I can find there. At this point, it's "try to find a physical explanation for this mathematical fact."
quote: Hello, dice-game person. Which is it? Non-mathematical, like the Petals Around the Rose game, or "not very"? [Editor's Note: Hello Teshi! How are you?]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Hmph. If you're going to quote Jatraqueros, you can at least have the grace to come post on the thread...
Posted by Gosu (Member # 5783) on :
What I meant was that the insight into finding out the pattern is nonmathematical, but then getting the answer probably involves a bit of math afterwards.
[ March 21, 2005, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Gosu ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That is NOT nice. I don't think it's polite to be culling comments for the comment page from here without permission. Some of those are mine, and I did NOT email them to anyone.
Gosu, is that YOUR game?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Its almost certainly copyright infringement that doesn't fall under fair use.
We should sue.
Actually we could just send a copyright infringement notice to his ISP and watch the pages come down, but that would be mean.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
yeah, and then I'd NEVER solve this stupid puzzle!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Download the page and keep a local copy, its all in javascript.
Posted by dspeyer (Member # 758) on :
Well, it seems like a "move" is decreasing a block of adjacent dice by the same number and checkmate is either 11111 or 11121. This is really random though ... sure I'm missing something.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
11122 also works.
Posted by dspeyer (Member # 758) on :
Oh wow, that's wierd. 11222 gives 2 moves, not 1, even though I could reduce the middle die by 1 to get to the position Tom points out.
Posted by solo (Member # 3148) on :
Okay, I have this figured out but I have no idea what Checkmate! has to do with it and I don't believe this assertion from the webpage owner:
quote:After hearing of this game, I was able to figure out the secret immediately.
It may have not taken long, but immediately is a pretty big stretch.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I figured it out from the deliberately convoluted source code. It seems to me a pretty random algorithm. It has nothing to do with chess.
If you want to know what it is email me at mash@best.com with CHECKMATE! in the title so I see it through the cacaphony of spam.
Pix
(edit: DO NOT use my comments on your comment page. btw, isn't "gosu" supposed to be spelled "gou shi"?)
[ March 22, 2005, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: The Pixiest ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I think a lot of us have figured out this algorithm from the source code--myself included. But the point is that we see no relation to Checkmate, and it seems, as you said, like an arbitrary algorithm, and so we're trying to find a different rationale for getting right answers, that has the "elegance" that . . . . . SPOILER . . . . taking the largest die, discarding its neighbors, summing the values and subtracting three . . . . . END SPOILER . . . lacks. Hence the suggestion, above, that the source found a deliberately inelegant way to get the right answer to obfuscate the better solution. The author (?) himself suggests as much when he or she repeatedly states, in the commnents, that it's not some random algorithm, and that the name is relevant.
I figured out the Petals Around the Rose thing, which I had not seen before, in about twenty minutes. I don't know if this is good or bad. I have easily spent longer on this one and not figured out the solution, and apparently Hatrack's combined brainpower is stumped as well.
Wouldn't it suck if the whole thing were just a hoax?
[ March 22, 2005, 07:47 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Well, it seems like a "move" is decreasing a block of adjacent dice by the same number and checkmate is either 11111 or 11121. This is really random though ... sure I'm missing something.
quote: 11122 also works.
As do 12111 and 12211.
[ March 22, 2005, 07:56 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by Emily W (Member # 7504) on :
Here is a hint for those of us trying to figure it out without looking at the source code.
Put "0," that's the number zero, in all the boxes and press solve. Try using negative numbers.
It helps a bit.
I still don't get the "checkmate" reference.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Based on the source code, I suspect that the answers you are getting for negative numbers are GIGO.
In fact, it just adds all of your negative numbers and subtracts three.
[ March 22, 2005, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by Emily W (Member # 7504) on :
Well dang. I thought I was on to something.
Thanks for the heads up though.
*rolls again*
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
On the comments page:
quote:[Editor's Note: It appears I've upset a few users in one particular forum. One of them says they might sue me or might try to get my page removed :-( But I will definitely talk to my lawyer about it tomorrow (just kidding, I'm not old enough to have a lawyer)! Oh, rika means business, s/he put an angry face at me, I hope they don't get too mad]
A bit immature, if you ask me.
Also, saying
quote: Apparently this link was posted in quite a few forums.
is rather disingenuous when you post the link yourself.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*shrug*
If he can't spot an obvious joke, his loss.
edit: in fact, I grant him a license to reproduce any of my posts, provided they are reproduced in their entirety and with clear attribution, and that if he reproduces any I feel lack sufficient context I may require he put up additional commentary by me (likely merely another post or two I made on the subject), but he may always take down the post he has up instead of putting up my additional content.
[ March 22, 2005, 08:51 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:Wouldn't it suck if the whole thing were just a hoax?
It would suck for the person who came up with the hoax. I guarantee it.
Mike has posted fun math puzzles on hatrack before, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for now.
[ March 22, 2005, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
And now the link to the comments page is gone.
[ March 22, 2005, 08:56 PM: Message edited by: Rappin' Ronnie Reagan ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Methinks somebody is a touch sensitive.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Dice Game Person: All you had to do was ask; most of us would have said yes. We're not just names and comments, we're real people .
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Exactly, Teshi.
Although, given the nature of the comments-about-the-comments on the comments page (say THAT five times fast), I might not have.
They are fairly mean-spirited. Which makes me wonder more and more whether this whole thing is a hoax/joke.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Well yes, but I think that were the person treating us as real people, he or she would not be making such comments at our expense.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Possibly.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, I'm trying to get into the head of the author, here. The actual process used is fairly simple, but I can't for the life of me figure out what this has to do with any meaning or permutation of the word "checkmate."
And I figured out "Petals Around the Rose" quite literally on the second roll. It took me under a minute.
But this one makes no sense whatsoever.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
I'm with Tom on this one. It's very simple to do in your head, but a connection to "Checkmate!"? No idea.
SPOILERS... (as if I need the warning anymore at this point in the thread)
Maybe something to do with not being able to move next to high numbers? But why subtract three at the end? Seems pretty arbitrary.
Posted by solo (Member # 3148) on :
I didn't figure out Petals Around The Rose very quickly. It probably took me a good 1/2 hour or more. This one took me longer than that and I did need to analyze the source code (as the -3 seems very arbitrary). I really can't think of any association this has to Checkmate.
SPOILER
The checkmate condition seems to be getting the dice down to 3 ones (so the -3 will make the total 0).
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
No. Two fours and three ones doesn't make a checkmate.
Posted by solo (Member # 3148) on :
That's not really what I meant.
BIGGER SPOILERS | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | The dice seem to affect the adjacent ones. A bigger number will "kill" the adjacent dice (set them to 0). You start with the highest number die (if there are more than one of the same value, you give precedence to the one on the left). For example: 41235 - the 5 sets the 3 to 0, then the 4 sets the 1 to 0, the 2 then has a 0 on either side and affects nothing. You then add the non-0 values up and subtract 3 to get 8 as the answer.
In the case of 11111 the first 1 kills the second 1, the third 1 kills the fourth 1 and you are left with 10101. Add them up and subtract 3 to get an answer of 0.
This algorithm works but I don't know what it has to do with Checkmate!
[ March 23, 2005, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: solo ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Sometimes you are left with only two non-zero values: 1 6 1 6 1 yields 9, which leaves a 1 and a 2 in place of the sixes.
I got this visually, and had to arbitrarily put in values to confirm the minus 3. Having read the source code, I can't know for sure if the visual impression (kind of like islands of "power" emanating out from the highest dice) was totally correct, because it's been adjusted by my knowledge of the source code.
I still can't find a "physical" explanation, related to checkmate! or not. I think it's possible he screwed up the source code.
Dagonee
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
SPOILER . . . . . . . . .
quote:This algorithm works but I don't know what it has to do with Checkmate!
That's actually the one thing I do get. My assumption from the outset was that the "mate" probably referred to adjacent dice. I'd thought "check" meant "to consult," but based on solo's post, I suppose it means "to stop."
I don't know where subtracting three would enter into it, though...
(Petals on the Rose was much more straightforward. Got that one in about three minutes.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Welcome to Hatrack, Shmuel.
Is it me, or have we a sudden influx of Jewish newbies? (mostly on the other side . . .) I'm very curious as to why that might be, if so.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
Aleichem sholom, rivka.
In my case, you can blame/credit Chris Bridges for my joining here. He's referred to various threads here for some time in our conversations, and I eventually started lurking... and, you know, one thing led to another, and here I am. Thanks for the welcome!
[ March 24, 2005, 12:08 AM: Message edited by: Shmuel ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Any friend of Chris' will be a great addition to Hatrack.
May I ask how you know Chris? You aren't even in the same state as he is!
Posted by dspeyer (Member # 758) on :
I don't understand the described solution. 46444 yields 7 moves. How does the "delete neighbors of largest cube, add and subtract 3" give the answer?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Stepping in so I can out him.
Shmuel is my writing buddy, met online some years back. We've chatted and e-mailed for quite a while, met once in New York City when I went there for the express purpose of meeting several URL friends from around the country, and we manage to find something to IM and giggle about every day.
Last year he started taking column-writing courses in college and ended up with a deadline similar to my work deadline, so we started bouncing ideas and drafts off each other. I offer him direction and dumbass ideas, he offers impeccable copyediting abilities and the wisdom to tell me when my columns drift off into the kingdoms of Unfunny and Lame.
Most Monday nights we can be found sending lengthy IMs to each other until the wee hours, explaining why the other has to delete the part he really likes.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
Re: dspeyer's post:
Saying "SPOILER" is probably pointless now, but here it is again: SPOILER!
quote:I don't understand the described solution. 46444 yields 7 moves. How does the "delete neighbors of largest cube, add and subtract 3" give the answer?
You missed the step where the largest remaining cube has the same effect after the first deletion goes through. So 46444 begets 06044, then 06004, or possibly 06040. Either way, add 'em up and you get 10. Subtract 3, and you get 7. Voila!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Cool.
I have online friends like that -- some of whom aren't even on Hatrack. Yet.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:So 46444 begets 06044, then 06004, or possibly 06040.
06044 definitely becomes 06040. The checking of mates goes left to right (see, for example, 56666 versus 66665). As for the interpretation of the puzzle title, I think it's lame.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)