Is This Minesweeper Grid Solvable Without Guessing?

[Greg825]

Saw this at a website..
[] [][][][] []
[] 2 2 2 2 []
[] 2 0 0 2 []
[] 2 0 0 2 []
[] 2 2 2 2 []
[] [][][][] []

See if you can figure it out without guessing and checking (derive the solution logically). Might be easier for minesweeper addicts.

edit, darn the spacing is messed up.
edit 2, good enough.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

0 1 * * 1 0
1 2 2 2 2 1
* 2 0 0 2 *
* 2 0 0 2 *
1 2 2 2 2 1
0 1 * * 1 0

 

[Greg825]

yep, but what was your reasoning? (might be a pain to explain without pictures)

 

[whozum]

http://www.public.asu.edu/~hyousif/disappointment.JPG

 

[mattmns]

Ouch whozum!

Good puzzle, never saw that before. Answer was not too hard, I used 2 counterexamples to prove that it is the only way. Is there another way to prove it?

 

[neurocomp2003]

heh i can't believe you didn't see the 2 bombs on the (2bombs)3222(1bomb)
same solution for (1bomb)2222(1bomb) but i got to commend you (hope that's the write word) for you speed 60 sec with that little left...i isually done 3/4 at 60

 

[Greg825]

for whozums you can immidiately see that the third mine from the right on the top row is a mine if you look at the 3 (with two marked near it) and the 2. If you considered this and there's something I didn't see let me know.

edit edit: forgot who i was responding to.

 

[mattmns]

It is always easy to see what you should have done after you lost

 

[neurocomp2003]

yes but there are certain patterns that others use that you may need to build into your set of patterns.

 

[whozum]

The reason its an 'ouch' is because I misclicked the corner mine (the Xd one) while meaning to go up to the mine right above the two. It wasn't that I didntk now what to do, its just I made a slip, which happens a lot :(

That wouldve been my new record, probably about 65-70

 

[Greg825]

the answer I was looking for was something along the lines of:

Take a corner section of the puzzle, bottom right for example.

0 2 []
2 2 []
[][][]

refer to either "2" that's not in the corner. it's immidiately recognizable that at least 1 of the (shown) adjacent squares to either "2" has a mine (because each "2" is touching uncovered three squares total). Then consider the corner "2", only 2 of the 5 uncovered squares shown can contain mines which means that for each non-corner "2" only one of the shown adjacent squares contains a mine. It is then known that

...X
...0 2 []
...2 2 []
X [] [] []

there must be mines where the X's are, and it should be clear that this result will be produced from any corner of the puzzle (thus solving the whole thing).

Was it too obvious, not obvious enough, or just not worth writing out?

 

[whozum]

I've seen it before, its obvious after process of elimination, but there's no 'trick' to it, you have to either know where to look or find out where to look.

I'm a minesweeper regular too.