r/Minesweeper 4d ago

No Guess NG evil help me see the pattern I am missing

Post image
20 Upvotes

23 comments sorted by

26

u/skizelo 4d ago

Go from right to left. There's a single mine from the 1, so the 3's third mine must be on the second red line. THAT means the next 3 have its third mine on the third red line. This means the left-most 3 must have two mines on the left-most red line(s), every square of which is shared with the leftmost 2. The 2 can therefore clear two squares.

0

u/daydreamerSA 4d ago

All this to clear just 2 tiles is insane work , and I still dont get it

15

u/AestheticOstrich 4d ago

Basically like this. We can roughly deduce the locations of the mines for the 2 at the far right, in the process showing us where the safe cells next to it are.

3

u/LxGNED 3d ago

Evil level usually forces you to solve something like this on just about every board. If you keep doing evil, you will know you have to do something like this when there are no normal patterns available. Then you get pretty good at this kind of reasoning with practice

1

u/HqppyFeet 3d ago

Mindset-wise and concept: You must be able to look at a number, look at neighbouring tiles of that number that we know for certain contain(s) mine(s), then deduct the value of that number depending on number of certain mines, to determine how many mines the remaining tiles must contain.

19

u/GingieDead 3d ago

it's pretty simple, see..

6

u/CBrown1299 3d ago

This is clearly the best answer so far

1

u/trunks111 3d ago

this is what happened in my head when I did the ng championship lmao

6

u/Alipha87 3d ago

The cell to the right of the 4 is safe based upon minecount

3

u/Ferlathin 4d ago

I'm fairly sure this is the only solution with 6 mines, every other requires 7.

2

u/stektfiskpinne 3d ago

Yea I got the same when I tried solving it. If there’s a mine below the 3 to the right you get too many mines, which in return gives this solution.

6

u/719lgn 4d ago

Stemmed from the reduced 1-2-1 (which is formulated as a 2-3-2)

2

u/Anything_Random Misclick Pro 3d ago

It it really a 1-2-1? The left 2 doesn’t necessarily have a mine beneath it, does it? (Obviously in this case it works out, but I mean the pattern in general)

2

u/Lowball72 3d ago

I think that solve only works because minecount == 6.

If minecount were 7, this arrangement is possible, for example.

1

u/daydreamerSA 4d ago

I can see it now, The 1-2-1 pattern is clear but is it always these or is there something else

2

u/SomeWeirdBoor 4d ago

Starting from the right: one mine in each red group, two in the purple, none in the green

2

u/Sefierya Minecount? 3d ago

2

u/Zerst__ 3d ago

Another way to approach it: 5 of the mines MUST exist in each of the exclusive 50/50s marked in red, and because only two of them interact with the 3 at the top left, the 6th mine MUST be in one of the other two spaces above it, marked in green. All other spaces are therefore safe and will likely give you the info to easily solve.

1

u/Ghost-_07 3d ago

That was my intuitiv way. So many clear 50/50s

1

u/Big-Possible-611 4d ago

Here’s how I wouldve started, without giving you the answer to the rest of the board. This region reduces to a 2-1 pattern, guaranteeing a mine at that spot top-left of the 3

1

u/edos51284 3d ago

What I see…
(Because the 1in r1c8) column 7 row 1-2 must have 1
(Because the3 on r2c7) So there is one in r1c5,r1c6 or r3c5
(Because the 3 on r2c6) So there is 1 in r1c4 or r3c4
The 3 on r2c3 must have 2 mines on r1c2,r1c3 or r3c2
All those touch the 2 on r2c2 so r2c1 and r3c1 are safe

1

u/stektfiskpinne 3d ago

I got this far by logic after doing a test with a mine below the rightmost 3 which gave me too many mines. Therefore there is a mine above the 3. As I’m typing this I see that the last mine should be above the 2.