Yet again in my hour of need, I receive an email from the Mike Desilets, the official PuzzleMad foreign correspondent, offering help with a truly wonderful article. I have been working on a particularly fun and beautiful puzzle for a couple of weeks now but have gotten to a point where I’m rather stuck. I’m currently waiting for inspiration to strike me but with the dirty looks that Mrs S is giving me, it may be her who strikes me instead! I need to stop swearing at puzzles whilst she is watching TV. Without delay I’ll hand you over to Mike for a fascinating romp through a wide range of challenges.
Aloha Kākou Puzzlers,
Today’s Foreign Office installment will be a puzzle pot-pourri. I have a few tightly-focused articles in the works, but none of them seem anxious to finish themselves. Sometimes this stuff becomes actual work and motivation drops off a cliff accordingly (Ed - I know that feeling!). So, in the interest of procrastination, I decided to adopt a more classical blog approach and simply take pictures of stuff I have worked on recently and opine. Less depth, more variety.
We begin where we left off with Hip-flask. In the midst of writing the Hip-flask post, I ordered a copy of Felix’s Titan (in the UK get it here). It was bound to happen. The puzzle is just as advertised: two brass hemi-spheres, inexplicably joined. It is very beautiful, as only a metal sphere can be. This would be a worthwhile purchase even if it were not a puzzle. Having now seen the quality of the interior machining, I really wonder how this can be made so inexpensively, and in the UK no less.
Titan, by Felix Ure.
A nice even patina is developing; no polish necessary.
It didn’t take long to realize that my first impressions of the puzzle, based on various online sources, was correct. This puzzle falls squarely into the mystery-object category. There is an internal mechanism holding the pieces together and something is clearly rolling around inside. The hemispheres rotate past one another freely, until they do not. They also separate slightly, but nothing internal is visible. I tried the standard solutions, followed by non-standard guesses, followed ultimately and inevitably by random shaking, twisting, spinning, and pulling (Ed - now that is my kind of solution method!). After a solid week and a half of this, an hour or two each night in front of the television, I achieved separation. The early solvers were right, it’s a great feeling when it comes apart. By the time it happens, you have basically lost all hope. It’s really quite a pleasant shock. Of course, you shouldn’t pat yourself on the back too much. This is an exercise in patience, not cleverness. For myself personally, if not for the TV multi-tasking, I’m not sure I would have stuck it out. I’m not getting any younger, after all, and I can test my patience in other, more productive ways. That said, I am THRILLED to have opened Titan. The internals are the very definition of beauty. The mechanism is simple, principled, and obviously very effective.
Below is an image of the internals, if you are interested. It does not show everything, and certainly not the critical components. I doubt VERY much that this will help you solve Titan, but out of an exceedance of caution Kevin will put it behind a spoiler button:
Ed - to be honest I’m not sure this really helps!
B-Lock II - Brass body and steel shackle
Packaged in a beautiful embroidered bag
Nice touch Boaz!
Moving right along, I also had a chance to play with Boaz Feldman’s B-Lock II this week (Ed - I reviewed it in March). This had been on my shopping list for a while, but I always found some reason or other to push it aside in favor of other purchases. I enjoyed B-Lock I (Ed - reviewed here), but hadn’t heard or read much about the new release. Now that I have it, I regret putting it off, and you should not hesitate the way I did (Ed - both are often available direct from Boaz on his Etsy store). This is a really fun puzzle lock and I would even go so far as to say that it is underrated, or at any rate under-appreciated. With the likes of Rainier and Shane producing great stuff, and the legacy of Dan Feldman himself hanging over the sub-field, you can see why this might occur. But B-Lock II doesn’t have any pretensions at that level, and I think Boaz would be the first to admit that. What B-Lock II does have is a high-quality build and a very original and clever mechanism (to me at least, admittedly not a lock expert). I can tell you, without fear, that it has two components, and these must synchronize before the lock will open. One is a common lock ‘gimmick’ and the other is something new (to me).
B-Lock II is not particularly complex, just very crafty and efficient, especially given the limited material provided by an off-the-shelf padlock. After you initially open it, you will not know exactly why unless you study the internals. If you immediately close and reset, it could be a while before you get it open again. For me this puzzle provided a solid half hour of entertainment, which is precisely what I want from a lock in this range. In fact, I think we could do with more locks of this type: affordable, available, fun, and very well crafted. We often get the last two, but not always the first two. Overall, I think it’s a real winner from Boaz and I heartily recommend it. It is worth remembering that Danlock was not invented overnight (Ed - available here and here). With what we have seen from Boaz thus far, I can’t help but think that he is building toward something.
An unlocked lock.
Ok, enough of that. I can only take so much cutting-edge puzzlery (Ed - is that a word?). Time to retreat into the annals of history. Out of respect for my gentle editor, and in light of the possibility that he can write prescriptions (I can indeed!), and would do so for me if I please him sufficiently (not across the I won’t), the remainder of the post shall be not only historical, but also decidedly Anglo-centric.
Bike parts
So let’s look next at a fun little puzzle called “BILD-A-BIKE,” which I gather from the Slocum Collection website originated in the mid-1950s. I imagine it was produced right through the 1960s as well, but I really don’t know and there is not much information available online. BILD-A-BIKE was produced and sold by Chad Valley, a company Kevin is no doubt familiar with (Ed - never heard of it! Have you heard of every small company in the US?). Chad Valley were, at least in the previous mid-century period, a premier English toy company (Ed - I wasn’t born then!). They have a fascinating history which you can find at the Woolworths museum webpage here.
Chad Valley was a toy company, first and foremost, but most every toy company had mechanical puzzles in their product lines at that time. In addition to BILD-A-BIKE, Chad Valley also produced a couple of boxed sets of entanglements, all of the standard sort. They produced a broad range of jigsaw puzzles as well. Otherwise the line was 99% toys and games. Despite a long and honourable history, Chad Valley basically ceased to exist in any meaningful way following their 1978 purchase by Palitoy. The product line was chopped up and sold off and independent production ceased. Subsequent owner Woolworths attempted to revive and capitalise on the Chad Valley name in the late 1980s as part of its ill-fated modernisation programme. During this effort, Chad Valley was reoriented as the face of a line of toys directed to the very young. The brand remains that way today under new owner Argos, virtually unrecognisable from its historical roots.
True enough, although the playing will flake and chip with normal use, a stainless version is needed
For the mechanical puzzle aficionado, BILD-A-BIKE is probably the most interesting Chad Valley product. It is a put-together puzzle in which you quite literally build a bike (or perhaps I should say bild? Check this). The pieces are nickel-plated iron, or maybe steel, I’m not sure. The pieces are “rustless,” as the packaging proclaims, but only to the extent that the nickel plating remains intact. You will probably have to look hard to find a pristine set. If you do find one, and want to keep it that way, then do not BILD-YOUR-BIKE!
As for solving, it is not any great challenge. The wheel/handlebar and wheel/seat connections are a little tricky. It is definitely a challenge to keep the front part assembled as you work on the back, and vice-versa. Dexterity is definitely required. Light force is also required, since the assembled bike is largely held together by tension.
Although obviously targeted at a younger demographic, BILD-A-BIKE is an enjoyable little puzzle for all ages. There is no Ah-ha! element to speak of, but it is very satisfying when the pieces come together and take the shape of a bike. I recommend this puzzle as a cool-down after solving Titan. In the final analysis, BILD-A-BIKE is a charming footnote in English mechanical puzzle history. I humbly suggest that my editor and patron MUST purchase one and also that he MUST give it a prominent place on his shelves. I await photographic proof. (Ed - I’ll see if I can find one)
BILT
Ok, time for one more, staying on the English theme. How about a shunting puzzle? I did a post a while back on these. Kind of a rare class, but they always fascinate me. When I came across a copy of Chunnel Trouble? a while back, I snapped it up without a second thought. Chunnel Trouble? (that question mark is going to get tiresome) was made by distinguished, though tragically inactive, English puzzle producer and seller Pentangle. Chunnel Trouble? is a fantastic revival of a classic shunting problem, probably THE classic shunting problem. It also sports a contemporary and quite ingenious design, packaging, and marketing approach. It is, in effect, a nineteenth century puzzle in new clothing.
Chunnel Trouble? Not really.
Although there is plenty of shunting (or switching) involved with actual Channel Tunnel operations, it likely bears little resemblance to the Chunnel Trouble? layout. Regardless, Chunnel Trouble? is a delightful design. According to the box, the trains can pass each other in 33 moves. The siding looks like it will hold only two cars, if that. This puzzle can alternatively be solved using slips of paper, or whatever objects you prefer (except marbles); you don’t necessarily need to own the actual puzzle. Most shunting puzzles are that way. The physical version looks very well made, possibly in maple, and most definitely in England.
Why do I seem a little cagey in my description? Well, that’s because I have not actually played with, or even touched, this puzzle. It’s a rare occurrence. I cannot play with this puzzle for the simple reason that it is in its original packaging, sealed, untouched, and unspoilt. The Channel Tunnel was constructed between 1988 and 1994. I don’t know the actual date for this puzzle, but it should fall within that range, or close to. Kevin or the MPP chaps will doubtless enlighten me. I do know that it is currently 2020. So given the time gap, whatever it may precisely be, I clearly can never break the seal on this puzzle. I could not bring myself to do it when I first bought it, and after anguished consideration, I’ve decided that I never will. Pristine examples are a sacred trust. Also, given the fact that the puzzle can be ‘played’ any number of other ways, there is really no call to grub it up like a complete barbarian. Instead, I’ll just squirrel this copy away until it is the only unopened Chunnel Trouble? left in the world, the fundamental conceit of the vintage collector.
Instructions to help get you out of Chunnel Trouble.
This English puzzle jig is fun, and I definitely want to leave my editor brimming with tears of nostalgia (Ed - that would only happen if I could remember any of these toys). Here then, is one more. It slots in somewhere between the last two on the temporal plane. It is called Perfect Circle, part of the Waddingtons House of Games Mindbender series from the very late 1960s and early 1970s. There are at least six other puzzles in the series. Perfect Circle was apparently developed by House of Games, a Canadian company, and then licensed and manufactured by storied English game developer and producer John Waddington LTD. “House of Games” was traditionally part of the Waddington moniker, and it seems to have come and gone periodically over the course of the previous century. How it ended up in Canada I’m not sure. In any case, after a long history of service to the game-playing English public, Waddingtons was sold to Hasbro in 1994. I assume it is now no more than a residual-value brand name like Chad Valley. Check out this fun article for a trip down memory lane. If you want to learn about Waddingtons contribution to the war effort, definitely check this out. That must have been quite an A-Ha! moment for the boys.
Perfect Circle.
A low cost, high value puzzle from Waddingtons.
Back to the puzzle. Perfect Circle requires you to make a perfect circle (is there another kind?) out of 16 variously-cut pieces of colored cardboard. There are four shapes and three colors, as the instructions indicate. This is not the whole story though. There are actually eight distinct pieces, because two of each of the four shapes is a mirror reflection of the other two. They certainly look the same, but they are not interchangeable. This is tremendously important, and starkly apparent, once you try to comply with the matching rule on your as-yet imperfect circle. The rule that makes this puzzle more than a simple geometric assembly is that no two colors may touch side-on-side.
The rule of engagement.
Initially, upon dumping the pieces out, it seems like Perfect Circle might be a hair puller. Soon, though, you realise the importance of symmetry and things begin to accelerate. You will also quickly differentiate the outer pieces with curvature from the inner pieces without. It all starts to come together as you mix and match pieces.
Although finding the solution on first assembly is possible, know that at least two distinct circles can be formed which will never meet the matching rule. I had to work through both of these before I discovered the correct assembly, and actually began to think my puzzle was broken at one point. I had become obsessed with certain circle designs that seemed so beautiful they simply had to be correct. The puzzle fooled me, to its great credit. Yet again I had willfully disremembered the Tungsten Rule of solving: once you establish the theoretical impossibility of a given solution, you MUST move on (Ed - where did that come from?). Anyhow, it was a really fun solve and I highly recommend this modest little puzzle.
Is the circle perfectable?
Kevin, capstone of my arch (Ed - I don’t think I’ve ever been called that before!), I think you can find Perfect Circle for well under a tenner at any given boot fair (Ed - not in this age of social distancing it’s not!!!). Take poor Mrs S out of the house for once in your miserable life- make an afternoon of it. Your ulterior motive need never be known. It will be just between you, me, and 100,000 random blog readers. Whack! Ouch! Ed - Mrs S will not ever go to a boot fair!! She only shops in the finest of retail establishments! I’ll need to look on eBay.
That’s all for today folks. Hopefully this post was a good change from the usual foreign office material. It was definitely refreshing for me. Ok boss, over to you for the wrap-up...
Wow! What an odyssey! I enjoyed that a lot, thank you, my friend, for a fantastic romp through puzzles old and new, cheap and rather expensive, but all looking quite fun! I am really so grateful to you for taking the time to write for me and the readers and for providing me with some entertainment. I always look forward to what you produce - it’s always something I’d never have found myself and it makes me think.
My good friend and the singular PuzzleMad foreign correspondent, Mike Desilets, always comes up trumps for me just when I really need it. I seem to have been poorly for quite a while (12 days and counting) with a spot of puzzler's lurgy that just won't go away! Mrs S is complaining about the 'drowning in mucus' noises at night and keeps asking why I feel the need to gargle with it when she is trying to get to sleep. I, of course, am completely unaware of my horrific sound effects and have to add being woken up multiple times a night by being kicked or shouted at to my woes. Needless to say, puzzling has been a bit tough and every time I settle down to work on something I lose consciousness before I get anywhere. Just as I was getting desperate to find something to blog about, Mike dropped me another wonderful email about an old and interesting puzzle that he has been working on. Over to you Mike...
Aloha Kākou Puzzlers,
This time of year I, like you, fantasise (Ed - we are NOT getting into my fantasies here!!!) about all the puzzling I am going to get done in my time off. That never really happens. Instead, new puzzles flow into the house at an accelerated rate and the backlog grows (OMG! Tell me about it!). I also continually get hung up on certain puzzles that catch my interest. Many of those end up as blog posts, and today I have one such for you. Once again, it isn't the puzzle, per se, that has me hung up, but rather the full family of puzzles it belongs to. We’ll get to all that shortly.
Today’s puzzle is called, rightly enough, Dominola. Not to be confused with my editor’s current Dominola, Mrs S. That is a completely different blog post for a completely different kind of site (We are NOT going there! She won't let me). And you’ll have to pay for it. I am of course referring to the domino-based puzzle designed by Eric Everett way back in 1935, or so. The extent to which it can be considered an original design is open to question, and we will get to that further down. My usual slapdash patent search turned up nothing on the puzzle itself, but the phrase “Dominola, unique puzzles with many solutions” was duly copyrighted on June 10, 1935. Mr Everett then applied for a trademark on the name DOMINOLA in a distinctive if unimaginative san-serif font on June 29, 1935. The name Dominola (in a different font) had been previously registered as a trademark by one John M Haddock on April 7, 1903, for a card game. It appears this earlier trademark had expired by the time Mr Everett applied. Unlike patents, trademarks are considered “abandoned” under US law after three years of non-use. Said use, must be continuous, ongoing, and demonstrable, otherwise the mark goes back into the stew pot.
Dominola packaging.
Eric Everett’s Dominola puzzle consists of a complete set of double-six dominoes and a two-sided playing board. A double-six set consists of 28 tiles, 7 of each number. In keeping with the times (see Embossing Company post from way back), and likely the target price-point for the puzzle, the tiles are made of embossed wood. If this post makes you want to add a set of dominoes to your collection, I recommend an antique set of bone over ebony with brass spinners. They seem to be plentiful on the British and European Ebays and are reasonably priced considering many are over a hundred years old. Anyway, wooden tiles are quite fit for Dominola and the coloured pips add a nice splash of, well... colour.
Dominola instructions - no surprises here.
So you already have a bargain with this puzzle, in that it comes with a full set of dominoes. You can both play dominoes AND solve Eric’s two puzzles. That’s right, two, because the playing board is two-sided, with a different puzzle on each. Look at the pictures below if you don’t believe me. Now, the objective of the puzzle is to lay down the tiles, ends matching of course, in such a way as to complete a continuous circuit. In essence, this is an edge-matching puzzle. Although the dominoes have “numbers” of pips, there is no mathematical element to the solution. The pips could very well be replaced by symbols or just colours for that matter.
Lack of maths does not mean the puzzle is easy. It actually requires a respectable amount of work. Why? Glad you asked Kevin! (Hahaha!) Picture a simple tile rectangle. It would be pretty easy to make this circuit with the dominoes. Plenty of solutions and only one constraint, continuity. Now picture a figure-eight; one crossing. All of a sudden you have a constraint, though a minor one, and thus slightly fewer solutions. Add more crossings and/or interconnections and you quickly introduce all sorts of complicated co-dependent constraints, and the number of solutions drops rapidly. These new constraints typically involve three, four, and even five-way linkages of same-numbered pips. It's an interesting and underappreciated fact that all of the tiles in a pip-number set are not equal. The double-sided tiles (1-1, 2-2, 3-3, etc.) are, in a sense, unique in the way they function. When you are working on your homework assignments (below), you’ll quickly discover that the placement of double-sided tiles requires especially careful consideration. (Homework? But but but...I'm poorly!)
The complete double-six set provided with Dominola
Mr Everett does offer the puzzler an olive branch of sorts, in that four tiles are pre-set on each board. This gives one a starting point, at least. In the case of the purple side, the fact that two of the pre-placed tiles have one pip is highly significant and immediately rules out certain arrangements. There is still a lot of work to do, but the pre-set tiles at least stimulate thought in an analytical direction, or they should anyway. That becomes the real fun of this puzzle.
I must confess, I have never been a huge fan of edge-matching (Me neither). All too often it is simply a seemingly endless trial and error search tree process; not much to think about other than keeping track of what you’ve already tried so you don’t spin around in circles. I had that mindset and expectation when starting out on Dominola. I quickly realized, however, that domino tiles are not anything like the conventional three, four, or six-sided geometric tilings we are used to. They have, as you can see, two ends, each of which can form three potential connections in as many cardinal directions. They are fundamentally “end-matching” if you will. While most edge-matching puzzles build into a solid shape, domino tile end-matching forms open patterns (and also shapes, if you want to take the maths approach). This makes them intrinsically interesting to a recreational aesthete such as myself. You have to admit, Mr Everett’s designs are quite eye-catching. But more importantly, the properties of domino tiles, and thus how they match, opens up opportunities for true problem-solving.
Purple side
Orange side
So solving Dominola involves more than just trial and error. But don’t worry, If you are a lover of trial and error, there is still plenty of it. Despite what I just said above, I could not find a method to fully “solve” the puzzle through algorithm or artifice. I still think it is out there, I just didn't have the patience or smarts to figure it out before resorting to brute force.
Orange in play.
There are certain rules that should be helpful, though. For example, given the layout of Everett’s purple board, every tileset (7 tiles of a given number/colour) must necessarily connect its tile ends in patterns of either 2-2-3, 5-2, or 3-4 (3-4, for example, means 3 interconnected tiles connected in one place and 4 in another). These are the only possibilities, and they apply to all seven tile sets. So if you find you have laid down, say, two connected tiles of a certain type, you cannot then lay down four connected tiles of that type, or else you will have one lone member leftover with no partner. You would need to go with a 5 or a 2 and a 3, assuming the circuit allows for these. Keeping this in mind, and constantly checking against the three fundamental set patterns, you can prevent yourself from creating some clear dead ends. It should allow you to select out a large number of losing arrangements as you work a certain approach. That said, there are still an infuriatingly large number of ways to get it wrong, even avoiding the obvious dead ends, and you won’t often find out until you get to the last few tiles. (My goodness that is a complex thing to think through!)
Consider, if you will, the perplexing lattice design below. I concocted this mostly for the cool interior-exterior optical illusion. I also thought that it would make a challenging puzzle. But is it actually solvable? Take a moment and analyze; see if you can figure it out in principle, without laying down any tiles.
Mike's Lattice Challenge.
The way to figure this one out is to first break the puzzle down into its components and analyze those first. You’ll notice if you stare at it long enough that the lattice is composed of two equivalent halves, mirror reflected. Looking at either instance, you will also eventually see that the layout necessitates a string of seven connected tiles (six is technically possible, but this doesn't help the situation at all since it leaves an orphan). You can arrange a seven-string once on a layout, but you cannot do it twice (which becomes increasingly necessary with two mirror lattices) unless the two strings are interconnected. There is one way to connect the seven-strings of each half, but it creates an insoluble dead-end. That explanation probably won’t make sense until you dig into the problem. The bottom line is that this lattice cannot be completely tiled, and more importantly, that you do not need to systematically attempt every possible tile combination to know this. (I'm pleased that you told me that! I am fairly certain I would have spent many hours trying it!)
As my indefatigable editor and I have said to you many times, Puzzlemad is a full-service blog. No, we won’t check your car’s oil level, but we do enthusiastically support our fellow travellers. Thus, we present you with a free digital copy of Dominola for your use and enjoyment. The purple side is downloadable hereand the orange side is here. I drafted these on an 11x17 board, so use your best judgment when printing them out at work. I used the Dominola tiles as a gauge, and they are a bit smaller than modern standard tiles. Fiddle with the enlargement/delargement (ed - is that a word?) settings and it should work out. You get what you pay for, so please don’t bother contacting the Puzzlemad customer service department. It's Mrs S’s mobile. (Whack! Ouch!)
True metagrobologists are by this point wringing their hands and scowling mightily. Of course, they are correct, Eric Everett did not invent this type of puzzle, and it is less than certain that he even originated the Dominola designs. I haven't seen them anywhere else, but of course, I have a meagre puzzle library. Those of the readership that have shelves and shelves of puzzle books, old ones especially, please feel free to research this issue (Ed - I actually have almost no books of puzzles at all). But regardless of Dominola design origins, the idea of making symmetrical circuits using dominoes has been around a very long time, probably nearly as long as dominoes themselves.
One puzzle book that I do own is Slocum and Botermans’ The Book of Ingenious & Diabolical Puzzles. It contains a selection of eight historical domino circuit puzzles (see page 59). I haven't tried all of these yet, but they look very interesting. The important thing to remember is that each one has its' own dynamic. They do not all behave the same way, and rules you might have developed to help you solve one will not necessarily be useful on another. You really have to think about each one on its own terms.
Since my decades-old copy of Adobe Illustrator CS3 was all warmed up making the Dominola boards, I went ahead and drew the Slocum and Botermans set, just for you. FULL service, my friends. Now you have no excuse at all. Tramp out to the corner market and order up a double-six set and some chips get puzzling. These eight designs will unquestionably keep you busy. Download them all in a single zip file from here.
Although none of the puzzles in this post requires arithmetic, there exists a whole array of domino puzzles that do. If you have that Slocum and Botermans book I’ve been referring to, you can study several pages of them. I would also like to make special mention of a third sort of domino puzzle. This is the use of dominoes to perform simple computation. Here’s a quick link to get you started - a half-adder from 2007. I think others have improved on it since. This will be VERY interesting to a certain narrow segment of the puzzle community.
Even the great Sam Lloyd had something to add to the Domino puzzle sphere - he published an article which you can read below:
I hope you have good eyesight!
To wrap up, I found Dominola, and the whole family of domino tile-matching puzzles, to be both fun and challenging. They go a step beyond any edge matching puzzle I’ve done previously, in a good way. Eric Everett did what many puzzle producers do, take an existing idea, tweak it a little, and package it in a way that is attractive to consumers. It is a great puzzle to own for the collector, although I suspect there are not many copies floating around, even fewer in good condition. More importantly, Dominola led me into the larger, deeply historical world of domino-based puzzles. This has not only caused joy (and frustration) but has saved me a significant amount of cash. If Mrs S finds out about this, I think Kevin will also save a lot of money, and also curse me to the grave. (Luckily for me, she doesn't read any of my drivel at all - otherwise, I am a dead man!)
Ok boss, bring us home...
My goodness! You have completely opened up a new sphere of puzzling to me! I had never even contemplated dominoes as a source of puzzles! I will need to get myself a nice set and have a play once my post Xmas finances have settled down a bit. The nice vintage domino sets I have found on eBay are quite pricey!
Thank you so much, Mike, as always, for helping me out in my hour of need! I will hopefully be back to full strength puzzling very soon or Mrs S may well euthanase me with her bare hands and teeth!
I hope that this has been of interest to all you puzzlers out there? I certainly found it quite fascinating and will certainly be trying some of these challenges myself.
Follow up - the reference given above to Slocum's book was an error - it should have been to Van Delft and Botermans' Creative Puzzles of the World. The page numbers are correct. Sorry if we confused anybody.
L.E. Ott’s Diamond 13 - Upending the classic magic square.
Well time for the first blog post of the year and I am extremely grateful to Mike Desilets, the PuzzleMad foreign correspondent for jumping to my rescue. I have been trying to solve a few new and old toys but this week have barely managed anything. On top of that I have just begun to go back to the gym after 8 weeks off for my surgery and am absolutely shattered! I suspect that 45 minutes of cardio for my first time was not a good idea but then you know that I am not terribly bright. It is really useful every now and then to have Mike (or anyone else who wishes to write something interesting) take the pressure off. Over to you Mike.....
Aloha kākou puzzlers,
As you may have noticed, it’s been quite some time since I’ve filed a report with Puzzlemad. Work has gotten the best of me lately and I just haven’t been able to muster the energy to sit down and write anything (Kevin makes it look very easy (Ed - if only that were true!)). It got so bad that my dear editor even sent me a note asking if all was ok (Ed - I just like to keep in touch with my friends). That was really nice, and just the kind of thing you can expect from a puzzle friend. Things are indeed ok, and with the holidays upon us, I now even have time to catch up on my backlog. Although I haven’t made time to write, there are several interesting puzzles that I’ve been itching to talk about.
You’ll recall many many months ago we dove (Ed - as an American, I will let you away with that but all of us Brits are cringing and shouting the word "dived" at you now) into a small but happy corner of the vintage puzzle world. Thanks to my friend and puzzle compatriot Amanda, we were able to explore some very cool old sliders. Around that same time I managed to pick up a great puzzle from the redoubtable (and long defunct) Embossing Company, makers of the Time Puzzle and Line up the Quinties. I don’t think I went into any detail about the company at that time, not wanting to stray too far afield. However, the history of puzzle companies is a sideline interest of mine, so please indulge me for a bit. This is all stuff you can google for yourself, but I’ll save you the trouble. (Thanks!)
The Embossing Company was not a proper puzzle company, in truth, but rather more of a toy company that carried a wide range of wooden toys, games, and “novelties.” Their early puzzles were of the simple edge matching, construction, or pattern making type, all made using their trademark embossed blocks. “Toys that Teach” was their motto. The company was founded in 1870 in Albany, New York and stayed in business for 85 years, finally selling out to Chicago wooden (and plastic) toy giant Halsam Products Company in 1955. Halsam was a relative newcomer, having entered the business in 1917. The owners, however, invested heavily in automation and quickly dominated the market. After the acquisition, they continued to manufacture the Embossing Company’s successful and well-regarded ABC blocks, dominoes, and checkers at their Chicago factory. I find no indication that they continued to produce Embossing Company puzzles, however.
Very fine detail achieved by the Embossing Company.
Embossing Company products, including their puzzles, were made using an embossing process (did you see that one coming?). Embossing of wood involves the application of heat and pressure to imprint a pattern or design. You’d have to ask a woodworker to be sure, but it seems to me that the compression makes these wood game and puzzle pieces significantly more dense, and thus harder, as well. The examples I have are very robust and likely capable of withstanding much abuse, which I imagine the children’s toy block line received. The embossing process also supported very fine design detail. Upon close inspection you will find very small and highly detailed patterns pressed into the wood. If you are in the market for a very nice set of dominoes or checkers, think about hunting down an old Embossing Company set. They are as good as the day they were made and are prized by top checkers players particularly.
Nice durable pieces, courtesy of the Embossing Company, but be careful with the cardboard!
Ok, enough context. Let’s get to the actual puzzle. Today we have The Diamond 13 Puzzle, listed as No. 911 in the Embossing Company line. The Diamond 13 was invented by a certain L.E. Ott, probably in the 1940s or 1950s. A quick patent search pulled up nothing, so we can’t be exactly sure. This puzzle falls into the “Pattern” class, but somewhat uncomfortably in my opinion. You’ll understand better as you read on. (Ed - it looks like being in the Pat-Numb category of the Dalgety-Hordern classification)
The Diamond 13 is a descendant of the Magic Square family, including as it does the vast menagerie of ‘magic’ shapes that have been explored more recently. These puzzles are a mainstay of the recreational math community and have a very long history. Because the literature is so vast and most of the readership are likely familiar with them, I won’t go on and on. Also, recreational math is far from my strong suite. If I attempt to hold forth, I will eventually put my foot in it, betray my ignorance, and bring shame on Puzzlemad (Ed - NEVER!!). That said, you can’t appreciate the Diamond 13 without knowing the basics. So for new initiates, here is a very quick overview:
Magic squares present the puzzler with a square matrix of a certain size, the object of which is to fill the cells with numbers (the numbers representing the number of cells, specifically) that all sum to the same total—horizontal, vertical, and diagonal. The order 3 (3x3) magic square is the all-time classic, having only one Real (ℝ) solution (i.e. discounting rotation/reflection). Each magic square that is solvable has only one Magic Constant, being the number that must be totaled. Order 3 is 15, order 4 is 34, order 5 is 65, and so on. The number of Real (ℝ) solutions for magic squares increases extremely quickly (order 3=1, order 4=880, order 5=275,305,224 and order 6 is a staggering 1.8 × 1019, or thereabouts. No one knows the exact amount because no method has been discovered for its calculation).
2
7
6
⇨
15
9
5
1
⇨
15
4
3
8
⇨
15
⇙
⇩
⇩
⇩
⇘
15
15
15
15
15
Order 3 Magic Square. Known and pondered since 650 BC.
(Ed - My goodness I've had to do some html editing here - getting the Real number sign and superscripts and that table with arrows in it was a bit of a challenge)
Magic squares are the original ‘magic’ shape, but you can apply the concept to just about any shape you like, and people have done so over the years. Probably the second most well-known magic shape is the magic hexagon, discovered by William Radcliffe in 1895. There is only one solvable magic hexagon: order 3 with a magic constant of 38. It’s an interesting shape because the totaled rows are of variable length, ranging from 3 to 5 cells. This structure hints at how to speed up your solution search. The magic hexagon is one of the very few magic shapes to have transitioned from the mathematician’s page to an actual physical puzzle. Professor Puzzle produces a serviceable version in their Great Minds line. They are very widely available and cheap. I picked up my copy at Barnes and Noble.
Order 3 magic hexagon from Professor Puzzle.
Pieces are a loose fit, but they need to be in order to manipulate and work the puzzle.
There are all kinds of other possible magic shapes including stars, triangles, cubes, circles, pan-diagonal tori, and the mind-bending magic tesseracts (4 dimensional hypercubes). To learn about any and all of these objects, I highly recommend you go to Harvey Heinz’s website. You can spend hours there (Ed - I have!). I’ve only scratched the surface of what he offers. Harvey also has a page that will be of interest to mechanical puzzlers, in which he presents a number of magic mechanical puzzles supplied to him by Jerry Slocum.
Mr. Ott lays down the rules.
Totaling structure for the Diamond 13.
Now that we are all up to speed, lets return to the Diamond 13. Mr. Ott employs a magic diamond as his base shape. This is one of the least explored magic shapes. In fact, I can find almost nothing about them, even on Harvey’s site. No matter though, because the Diamond 13 is not intended to be a magic shape in the traditional sense. Rather, this puzzle requires one to create separate diagonal and horizontal/vertical totals, which are two different numbers. In the third challenge, for example, the four diagonals need to total 7 while the vertical and horizontal must total 21. Click the Show/Hide button to see what D-7 HV-21 this looks like solved.
The puzzle also diverges in its piece values. The diamond has 13 pieces ranging in value from 1 to 7. There are two 1s, three 2s, two 3s, two 4s, one 5, two 6s, and one 7. This is quite a mixture and certainly a departure from the sequential approach used for traditional magic shapes. Likely the major developmental work for the puzzle was in finding a mix of values that would generate the most ‘magic number’ problems. The image below shows 26 sample problems provided with the puzzle, and there are clearly more to be discovered. We take multi-challenge puzzles as a matter of course today, but they were not nearly as common in previous eras.
Sample problems for the Diamond 13 Puzzle.
D=diagonal, HV=horizontal/vertical.
With those radical departures from traditional ‘magic shape’ construction, one might reasonably ask if this is really even a ‘magic’ puzzle at all. The magic is usually to be found in the symmetry and deep patterning inherent in shaped arrangements of sequential number sets. And the magic constant of course underpins the whole edifice. The Diamond 13 takes great liberty with these rules, tossing most of them out the window. However, it still successfully exploits our primal fascination with the intersection of geometry and arithmetic, the quality responsible for the experiential “magic” felt when pondering magic squares or hexagons. From a historical perspective, at least, the relationship is crystal clear. The Diamond 13 was born conceptually from the magic square.
But there is really only one question that matters. Does it work as a puzzle? In my opinion, yes, it works very well. I had tremendous fun working out the various number sets. The sample problems are challenging but quite manageable. The Diamond 13 hits the sweet spot for my taste. I enjoy tough puzzles too, but for pure enjoyment, a puzzle like this can’t be beat. Part of the enjoyment is due to the fact that this isn’t just a hunt and peck puzzle, where you are simply exhausting possibilities. The structure of the puzzle can be used to your advantage, but the way it does so evolves with the changing target values of the magic numbers. Note that the diagonals are only three units long, with only one value not shared with another diagonal. The horizontal/verticals are five units long, sharing only one common piece. As you play through the first few challenges, the dynamics of the structure become apparent. Another pleasant surprise was the approach (not given in the instructions, I did it out of laziness) of transitioning from one solved state directly to the next solved state. Doing the challenges progressively, in other words, without scrambling the pieces between challenges. I recommend this style of play. Some of the transitions can be done in very few moves, if you can see them. Exploiting the structural limitations really pays off here. This form of progressive play is reminiscent of the Time puzzle.
The Diamond 13 Puzzle is yet another great, underappreciated example of mid-century puzzle design. Although it may seem a bit contrived compared to the mathematical elegance of a pure magic shape puzzle, I can assure you that the design functions as intended. It provide a series of moderate-level challenges that force you to exercise both trial-and-error and strategic thinking. The designer began with a magic square-like concept, then rewrote the rule book. This might easily have proved disastrous and it’s a tribute to the designer that the puzzle works so well.
Well as it works, we certainly don’t see the Diamond 13 in stores today. I’m not always sure why certain puzzles catch on and others don’t. In this case, the Diamond 13’s fate was probably linked closely with that of the Embossing Company itself. Like most game and puzzle companies, the Embossing Company relied mainly on a line of anchor products — tried and true classics — for the bulk of their sales. But they also tried to liven things up occasionally with new innovative products. The Diamond 13, the Time Puzzle, and Quinties were beneficiaries of the Embossing Company’s drive to distinguish itself from all the other companies making similar products (toy blocks, checkers, and dominoes principally). When the Halsam Products Company took over in 1955 however, only the best selling products, those with over a half century of name recognition, were retained. The more innovative puzzles, probably never great sellers in their own right (and often included only within larger sets) were not retained. I’m reasonably sure Halsam’s acquisition was more about buying market share than buying a product line anyway. Halsam would go on to be purchased by Playskool in 1962, which would ultimately be bought by Milton Bradley, which itself would even more ultimately be bought by Hasbro.
The Diamond 13 Puzzle. Unlikely to be reissued by Hasbro.
Although there are a diminishing number of Diamond 13 puzzles out there for puzzlers and collectors, they are not especially uncommon. Both Amanda and I have copies, which should tell you something right away. But you don’t need to buy the actual Embossing Company puzzle, great as it is. All you need is paper and pencil. This hold for all the magic shapes, bar the terrifying magic tesseract. If you close your eyes and concentrate, you might even be able to do the order 3 magic square in your head. Try it.
One final thing. The question of whether L.E. Ott’s diamond shape has a magic constant in the traditional sense may have crossed your mind. Looking at the layout, and thinking about the numbers involved (1–13), I would have to say I think not. But don’t take my word for it. I really don’t know and, embarrassingly, haven’t lifted a finger to try (Ed - shocking!!). But I will give it a go and report back in the next guest post. If anyone out there in the Puzzlemad Army wants to take up the challenge, please do. Even better, can you prove mathematically what the constant must be, or alternatively why there cannot be one? It’s an interesting problem which I am entirely unequipped to solve. Some enterprising rec math enthusiast should have a go at it. I’m sure you could get a paper out of it. Minimally, my editor will splash it all over Puzzlemad. (Ed - I definitely would even if I couldn't understand it)
That’s about enough for this post. Usually I try to squeeze in a few different puzzles for variety, but this seems like enough for one Sunday. Thanks for tuning in. Back to you Kevin . . .
Thank you so much for that Mike.....really GREAT article! I certainly do need to try and find some of these vintage puzzles for my own collection.
Tomorrow is my first day back at work and I am seriously not looking forward to it but I daren't be at home much longer or there will be a murder! "She" has already told me that I am NEVER allowed to have another operation that needs time off and I am never going to be allowed to retire! It would appear that I really got in the way AND pissed her off! Whack! Ouch! Ooops! Caught!
Last week I bemoaned the fact that I had fallen behind with my puzzling despite still being tempted to buy more and more toys by those pesky craftsmen. That trend continued this week when I received some new toys from Eric Fuller (including one from his auction site which I had been after for quite some time) - I will show them off on my New additions page soon. I've actually had a week of annual leave this week and have only had time to solve just one puzzle during the whole week! Mrs S has forced me to do lots of "maintenance stuff" around the house as well as do a very thorough (and exhausting) clean up of the garden. In fact I am quite surprised that I can move today after spending so many days lifting and bending outside in the blistering heat (it was 38ºC)! I was even able to get up and down to re-grout and reseal my shower this morning! Whenever I seem to be up against a blog-writing wall, my good friend and the official Puzzlemad foreign correspondent, Mike Desilets, springs into action to my rescue with something very different to my usual fare which is always beautifully written and interesting. He has done it again this week - thanks Mike.
Aloha Kākou puzzlers,
I’ve been mulling over this material for a little while now, but when I saw the title of Kevin’s last post, I knew I had to kick it into high gear. “Falling Behind” is not a good feeling in any context, puzzling included. I have fallen so far behind on my own tanglements that I’ve had to take refuge in the warm arms of Amanda’s vintage puzzle collection. Since Kevin can’t partake, being fully two oceans away, I will try to buy him some time with an overly long, rambling post. I trust his next post will be titled “Catching Up.” (Ed - I will do my best)
This installment picks up where the last one left off - in the realm of vintage sliding block puzzles. There is one more of that class that I feel compelled to highlight before taking you off in a completely unexpected direction. So let’s get right to business.
Our fourth vintage slider comes from Amanda’s collection, as you probably guessed, but I intend to get copy for myself very soon. It is the Qwik-Sane puzzle, invented by James R. O’Neil and produced and sold by WFF’N PROOF (WFF = well-formed formula). WFF’N PROOF enjoyed an early peak of popularity in the 1960s and 70s, which is why I put them in the vintage category, but they continue to produce their diverse range of logic-based puzzles and games today (under the care of the Accelerated Learning Foundation). This line has an explicitly intellectual bent. As the Qwik-Sane box informs us, this is “A Topological Puzzle for Thinkers.” The attitude and approach foreshadowed Binary Arts’ early philosophy (and marketing) and has a certain Gardneresque quality to it. WFF’N PROOF was also one of the early advocates of puzzles and logic games for “mental fitness.” Their signature logic game, WFF’N PROOF, claims to improve your IQ by 20 points after three weeks of play! Of course, the marketing of logic games and puzzles for mental fitness has been all the rage over the past few years. This despite the fact that there is no empirical evidence that they provide significant mental benefit. If you’re after mental improvement, then I suggest getting out of your puzzle chair and exercising. You’ll find this article very revealing. But marketing is marketing, and the idea of puzzling as mentally ‘healthful’ has an undeniably intuitive pull. The good people at Thinkfun® have been particularly adept, though certainly not alone, in capitalizing on this fact. Witness their repackaging of several established puzzles into a “Brain Fitness” line that encourages the buyer to “Cross Train Your Brain.” The science was perhaps somewhat equivocal when the line was launched (I’m being generous), but it has become increasingly less so with each new study. It will be interesting to see if profitability trumps intellectual honesty for puzzle manufacturers going forward. Recent legal decisions have slapped down the most egregiously deceptive ‘brain health’ claims (e.g. Lumosity). I can only assume this has industry-wide after-effects.
Qwik-Sane, with custom outer cardboard ‘frame’ by vintage puzzle surgeon Amanda.
Sorry, that was an unplanned digression. A blog goes where it will (Ed - I particularly enjoyed the meander off territory). I should mention that I have no intention of impinging the honour of one of puzzling’s most successful and profitable companies. I actually love Thinkfun’s products and I own a good many of them. Later in this post I will even review one of them (I think I just heard my editor fall out of his chair; this will be another Puzzlemad first, if I’m not mistaken (Ed - OUCH! That hurt!)). But let’s get back to the puzzle at hand, for goodness sake. As mentioned, Qwik-Sane came from the mind of James R. O’Neil. Not much is known about Mr. O’Neil. We do know that he held a number of patents for games, see here and here. And we also know that he invented Qwik-Sane sometime after his retirement from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, probably in the late 1950s or very early 1960s.
Cool vintage literature. Old puzzles are like time-capsules.
WFF’N PROOF offerings (including Qwik-Sane) from an ad in a 1978 issue of Popular Science.
Qwik-Sane rules.
Although Qwik-Sane is in some respects a straightforward slider, it is also somewhat different from the vintage sliders I discussed earlier. The puzzle consists of 9 lettered, one-unit-square blocks (unique except for two Hs), 1 two-unit rectangular block, 1 three-unit rectangular block, 1 square block with an image of Auguste Rodin’s “The Thinker,” and finally 1 square place-holder block numbered “35.” The 35 block indicates the number of moves (ideally) it takes to solve the puzzle. The starting layout of the puzzle is as shown in the figure. After removing the “35” block, the objective is to transport the “thinker” from the upper right to the lower left (instructions are to remove “35,” put thinker in upper right, then maneuver it to lower left). Unlike many early sliders where the final position for most blocks is arbitrary and only a target block is moved to a required solved position, in Qwik-Sane all the blocks except the two H’s are uniquely marked and have required positions. Not only must your traveling block reach its destination, all the other blocks must be returned to their original positions. I don’t know the sliding block class well enough to know if this is was innovative in the 1960s, but it certainly enhances the solving process and puts the puzzle a cut above most of the other sliders I’ve played with. It bears a certain similarity to the Time puzzle, which I also enjoyed immensely. There is not just a pathway to the solution, but a system of movement to be discovered. Kevin, take note—this is your kind of slider. Think of it as a two-dimensional twisty if that helps. (Ed - You've convinced me! I have been looking out for a copy of the Time puzzle but not found one yet - I have managed to find something similar and modern which I will show off at the end of the post).
With a 35-move shortest solution, Qwik-Sane provides plenty of challenge. I didn’t count my moves, but it couldn’t have been more than 50. That sounds like a lot, but they go by quickly. Fortunately, this layout does not send you down long dead end pathways like some of the more difficult sliders. My approach was to get the thinker to his required spot first, then reconstruct the lettering without disturbing him any more than necessary. There were some set-backs, but it was enjoyable working out the proper moves. This puzzle certainly has replay value. Wait a week and you will probably have to figure it out all over again, though the moves will likely get more ingrained the more you play. Since I have to give this copy of Qwik-Sane back to Amanda, there is no danger of that happening to me.
Qwik-Sane is a great example of mid-century American puzzle design and it seems to have enjoyed a very wide and long-lived distribution. There is even a copy in the collections of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History. They provide a nice write-up, from which I have drawn liberally. Vintage Qwik-Sane puzzles are widely available on ebay and other second-hand sites, usually very cheaply. I was also shocked and pleased to find, as mentioned above, that Qwik-Sane is still being sold by the original makers. You should probably get your puzzle from the source, unless you prefer true vintage (a real collector would get both). Check out the offerings of the Accelerated Learning Foundation and also read about president, founder, and WFF’N PROOF inventor Layman Allen. It’s a small off-shoot chapter in puzzle history (they are more into games than puzzles, truth be told), but certainly worth knowing about.
A long-lived puzzle that holds up well.
For the second half of the post, we now shift gears to a radically different type of sequential movement puzzle—Vesa Timonen’s Solitaire Chess. Followers of the major puzzle blogs will recognize immediately that I have veered into a corner of puzzle blogdom very competently covered by Gabriel Fernandez’s great blog (Ed - I agree. It's a MUST read blog). Gabriel is the only blogger who consistently reviews the wide array of commercially available, off-the-shelf puzzles available today. When I am in a store agonizing over which Smartgames, Thinkfun, or Brainwright puzzle to buy next (on any given Sunday), I eventually get out my phone and check his reviews. They are invariably well written and informative - in short, a huge help. (Ed - one reason I don't review these is because they do not seem to be easily available in the UK, even on Amazon UK)
Gabriel has, of course, already reviewed Solitaire Chess. So why retread old ground? Well, Gabriel’s review dates to 2012, and while still perfectly serviceable in all respects, Thinkfun has since repackaged and reissued Solitaire Chess as part of their Brain Fitness line which I good-naturedly derided above. This review is meant as a kind of update to Gabriel’s review. Also, you can never have too many perspectives on a classic puzzle. Sure, it’s only been around since 2006, and history will be the final judge, but I have no hesitation dubbing it a “modern” classic.
Vesa Timonen’s Solitaire Chess; Brain Fitness version by Thinkfun.
I’m going to assume you’ve read Gabriel’s review before embarking on this one, so you already know that Solitaire Chess is the invention of Vesa Timonen. No need to go into Vesa’s credentials, we all know them well enough. I will just say, for the record, that he is one of my favorite designers. For his puzzles, of course, but also for his design philosophy. You can find a great interview with Vesa over here which provides some insight into his process and approach. You’ll learn that not only did he invent solitaire chess conceptually, he had to develop the software that generates the many individual puzzle challenges. The whole process took about a year and half. Time well spent I’d say. Even out here in Hawaii I know of three stores within easy driving distance where I can pick up Solitaire Chess. A great design combined with Thinkfun’s extraordinary distribution network, it has become a fantastically successful puzzle, arguably in the league of Nob Yoshigahara’s Rush hour, if I may be so bold.
Let’s review the puzzle just a bit, as a refresher. It’s simple really, like all great puzzles. Solitaire Chess consists of a 4 x 4 unit chess board upon which are arranged a number of standard chess pieces according to a “challenge” layout. Pieces move according to standard chess movement rules. Pawns may only move ‘up’ the board. There is no castling, en passant, or pawn promotion, just basic movement. To solve the layout, one must perform a continuous series of captures until only one piece is remaining. All moves must result in a capture. That’s not too complicated and you can get a good feel for it after just a couple tries. Layouts for the game range from the almost trivial to some true stumpers. Since you’ve already read Gabriel’s review (and its comments section), you know that accomplished puzzler George Bell found the challenges too simple and, well, unchallenging. If you are especially adept at chess (Ed - I am truly awful at chess!), that may well be the case for you. Certainly the beginner and intermediate challenges are not overly tough. However, I found myself well and truly stymied by a number of the expert level layouts. A few of them were multi-session affairs. I think most people will find this puzzle a challenge from mid-level onwards. My own experience was very much in line with Gabriel’s, right down to the solve times. Moreover, I found it to have that indefinable “fun” quality that is the hallmark of most Thinkfun puzzles. In short, I enjoyed Solitaire Chess immensely. I agree wholeheartedly with Gabriel’s assessment that it is “one of the best puzzle/games from Thinkfun and also from the genre.”
A nice warm-up challenge.
Why is this puzzle so brilliant? Well, for starters, because it has almost nothing to do with chess, other than the movement rules. Once you take away the concepts of opposed advancing forces, an opponent intellect, attack, defense, check-mate, ect., you are left with precious little resembling chess. Just the movement rules, now combined with the classic peg solitaire ‘clear the board’ objective. Conceptually, Vesa’s solitaire game could have been designed with any movement rules one wished to concoct. But imagine trying to market a puzzle to the general public with new abstract movement rules for 6 different pieces. A tough sell, I would think. But Solitaire Chess has no such worries. Most people already know the basics of chess, at least in passing. That is to say, ‘most people’ who would peruse a store’s puzzle section. Such puzzle nerds (Puzzlemad editorial staff included) have a high probability of knowing more than a little about chess. (Ed - I know I'm crap!)
It’s no spoiler to note that the knight, with its unique L movement, does the lion’s share of work at the higher levels. The knight’s interaction with the other pieces allow this puzzle to achieve some very challenging configurations. The rooks and bishop’s certainly traverse the board in interesting ways and are not to be underestimated. Perhaps the biggest surprise was the central role of the humble pawn in several of the higher-level layouts, often far in excess of its station. Although the pawn has very limited movement, it has the ability to linger outside of the main action and is consequently difficult to ‘get to.’ You’ll understand when you play. Another surprise was the role that the king and queen play in this puzzle. They figure prominently in the earlier challenges but become increasingly rare at the higher levels. I think this is due to their high latitude of movement. The queen can usually muscle her way through any layout and sweep the board. The king less so, but ultimately its rôle in a solution was simpler for me to intuit. Importantly, the king must be the final piece on the board whenever it is present in a layout.
Something a little more challenging.
Part of the excuse for this review was the reissuance of the puzzle in the years following Gabriel’s initial treatment. At present, you can purchase either the original version or the new Brain Fitness version. I have the latter. You can also download a mobile Solitaire Chess app (iOS UK, iOS US, Android) from Thinkfun for $2.99 for play anywhere, anywhen. There seem to have been other apps around, but my quick and dirty google search produced mostly dead links. Although my preference is always for a physical puzzle, it is worth noting that Thinkfun provide 400 electronic challenges for your $2.99 purchase. Buying the physical puzzle will run you $20 US and you get either 60 (original) or 80 (Braintrain) challenges. The superior value of the electronic version is clear. Better yet, just go to the Thinkfun website and play for free! I don’t know how many challenges they provide, but it’s a good option if you are sitting on the fence.
But back to the physical puzzles. This is a mechanical puzzle blog, after all, and I can only push my editor’s patience so much per post (Ed - you've been so good to me that you have a LOT of leeway). Depending on the store you go to, you will see either the original version (as reviewed by Gabriel) or the new Brain Fitness version. The original follows Thinkfun’s early approach (now fading) of providing an entirely self-contained puzzle. The puzzle itself doubles as a box that contains all the pieces and the challenge cards. This is handy and I normally favor this approach. It’s neat and tidy. That said, I must admit that I prefer the Brain Fitness version, which comes in a slick cardboard box that is clearly labeled for an adult audience. No exuberant cartoon characters or exclamation points on this one. The game is played directly on the challenge cards, which are strung on a smoothly turning spiral binder. There are two reasons I like this construction. First, setup is faster. If you’ve played any of these modern multi-challenge puzzles at all, you’ll know that the set-up phase can quickly become a tedious chore. In the original version, you have to slide a card under the transparent play surface and then set up the pieces. Then remove it and begin again, etc. I know it doesn’t sound terrible, but by layout 40 you’ll wish there was a better way. I think the Brain Fitness version is more efficient in this respect - just flip the card and throw down the pieces. The second reason I like it has to do with piece movement, or lack thereof. The plastic play surface of the original has circular indents that hold the chess pieces in position, but also prevent sliding them around. This goes against the grain for anyone who has actually played chess. I prefer my pieces to slide across the board. The hard glossy cardstock challenge cards in the Brain Fitness version provide a great surface. Overall, I prefer the newer version for its ease of play and manipulation. It also has 20 more challenges than the original, so there is that too. Price-wise, they are about the same.
Now that all sounds like a good plug for Thinkfun, and surely they deserve your puzzle dollar, but you actually do not need to pay anything to take a stab at this puzzle. Everyone has access to a chess set (at least in this audience) (Ed - I am ashamed to admit that I don't own a chess set because I am so bad at it and Mrs S doesn't play either) and everyone can make a 4 x 4 grid with paper and pencil. All you are missing, and what Vesa has worked so hard to generate, are the challenges. Luckily for us, Thinkfun at one point offered a set of 40 free solitaire chess challenges. I don’t know when or where this happened, but the internet is forever and the pdf pops up in a number of places around the web. I imagine Thinkfun would prefer to sell puzzles, not give them away. But knowing that the leadership at Thinkfun have a strong relationship with the avocational puzzle community, I believe they won’t begrudge us a little fun at their expense. They are rich beyond all imagination, I assure you. That said, I recommend you click here for the extra challenges before the lawyers, Interpol, and/or Mr Timonen break down Kevin’s door and haul him away (Ed - too late!!! The men in white coats have got me). For those of you like me who are happy to purchase a copy of Thinkfun’s very well-made puzzle, these extra challenges simply provide additional value and fun. With the sole exception of challenge 9F, which is equivalent to Brain Fitness challenge #26, they are all new challenges (I went to the trouble of checking them all for you. Just one of the many services we here at Puzzlemad provide.). They probably come from the 400 challenges in the electronic game, I imagine. I don’t think they come from the original version, but maybe Gabriel or someone can check on that and let us know.
That’s it for this post. Thanks for tuning in and congratulations on making it all the way to the end. Hopefully it was worthwhile and, like all Puzzlemad posts, will help separate you from your money. Happy puzzling!
Thank you so so much Mike. That was a very enjoyable read and may even stimulate me to buy the puzzles, or a chess set or.....having surfed the web for nice chess sets I am very tempted to buy a beautiful Backgammon set - I am a not bad player but only have a small travel set not something of beauty for the living room! Hopefully when I am back at work I will get some time to solve some of my backlog of new puzzles!
In the meantime here is the version of the Time puzzle I got hold of. My version is from Ton Delsing and bought courtesy of Wil Stijbos:
