Any Potentates of the Rose here?

[kayal cox]

Petals Around the Rose
[ June 24, 2005: Message edited by: kayal cox ]

[Ryan McGuire]

Originally posted by kayal cox:
Petals Around the Rose

[ June 24, 2005: Message edited by: kayal cox ]

(This is one of the threads that got lost during the server crash, isn't it?)

I've seen a couple web implementations of this and I think this is the worst yet. Unfortunately, my reason for that statement would also be a spoiler.

If you enjoy this type of puzzle, then you would love a game called Zendo by Looney Labs. You can find out all kinds of information about from its page at Board Game Geek. It is, without a doubt, the game I've played the most in my entire life. I think my experience with Zendo made Petals almost too easy.

[kayal cox]

Yep, this thread got lost during the crash.
But I did not create it then, and actually that was the first I heard of it.

It was not easy for me to figure this one out, and I spent about 5 minutes each day over a week or so, before it hit me Dunno if that makes me smart or dumb.
I agree that the web version is no good.

Thanks for the link, I will look into it

[Ernest Friedman-Hill]

It took me about ten minutes. After about 8 minutes, I Googled "Petals around the Rose" and found several other implementations of the puzzle. I tried a different version, and then almost immediately got the solution. I totally understand Ryan's statement! This is a bad implementation, and I can't say why without giving it away. Either that, or it's a good implementation, and the others are bad for making it easier!

[Rick Beaver]

Took two seconds - I think the writer gave away too much

[kayal cox]

Two seconds! you are saying that purposely to annoy me, right?

[Timmy Marks]

Actually, the author did give away much too much. He didn't obfuscate his source.

[kayal cox]

It never struck me to find a shortcut for the solution.
[ June 30, 2005: Message edited by: kayal cox ]

[Tom Katz]

Yeh, you can see it in his javascript in the page's source. I was looking for a logical reason for it, and not just some arbitrary number assignments.

[Ray Stojonic]

Originally posted by Tom Katz:
... logical reason for it, and not just some arbitrary number assignments.

There is a logical reason for it.
(Potentate in 11 rolls )
[ July 01, 2005: Message edited by: Ray Stojonic ]

[Suhaasi Karnik]

Seriously Guys, its so frustrating... yet so simple.
I'm glad I got it ... it would have kept me awake for months had I not got it....

[Ryan McGuire]

Originally posted by kayal cox:
It never struck me to find a shortcut for the solution.

[ June 30, 2005: Message edited by: kayal cox ]

Let's call that what it is: cheating. (Which I'm sure is what kayal was implying with the .)

To those that looked at the source code: You would have felt a LOT more satisfaction if you had figured it out on your own without cheating. If you're about to reply, "It's valid to look at the source code, because the page author made it easily available," then let me pre-reply to that with, "It was a puzzle, and you should know the implied 'rules' against looking at the source code."

If you looked for source code to see how goofy the author was, that's fine. But if you read through it to become a potentate, then I'm quite disappointed with you indeed.

However, Mr. Katz's case brings up an interesting point: apparently it's quite UNsatisfying to know the answer without knowing the reason behind it.
<Imitation of Nelson, the bully from "The Simpsons" TV show>
Ha ha.
</Imitation>

Ryan

[Mark Spritzler]

Yep, too much information, and in just one sentence.

2 seconds after reading that one sentence.

Mark