Skip to content

Comment on Solving Minesweeper and making it better (2015)parent

Comments

Hmm... I'm tempted to say you should be looking at the number of squares uncovered, M.

If you got a good first click, you wouldn't want to waste it on unnecessary risk. If you got a bad first click, you'd want to keep guessing until you either died or uncovered another large section.

IIRC my N settled at around N=2.7, which means that a lucky first click would abort the queued random clicks between clicks two and three.

After that, the most important decisions for a fast match were deciding which mines not to tag because the final auto-tag would get them anyway and which empty fields not to uncover because they would be uncovered faster with an "uncover all surrounding" click on a saturated number. Clicking was definitely the bottleneck for me, so the main goal of the eye/pattern match was to keep the click-queue filled at all times. The eyes would always focus somewhere close but not too close to where the clicking happened, so that the pattern match could work on a stable image. Or sometimes just rest for a few clicks, when the hand could not keep up.

Fond memories of stupid things.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.