4 posts • Page 1 of 1
- Posts: 846
- Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2014 9:40 pm
When diagramming certain games (such as PT17 Game 4) I notice that it seems real easy when the 7sage guy follows each of the rules to a T and creates the only few solutions possible, but of course this isn't always the case, so I'm not sure when I should try to follow his approach (i.e simplify all remaining possibilities visually on paper) because sometimes I find that this approach as me making too many possibilities that aren't even tested by some of the questions. Any thoughts?
- Posts: 1087
- Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:53 pm
My rule was usually to split the game board when the rules were restrictive enough to make four or five possible worlds. An example of rules that would do that is if either A or B have to be in 3 and C must be in 1 or in 7- that creates four worlds (A3 C1, A3 C7, B3 C1, B3 C7). There's usually a lot of variability within those worlds that sometimes is worth it to split into another subgame board. Unfortunately there are going to be games where splitting is a waste of time and where splitting it into 8 worlds is worth your time- you only get good at figuring which is which by doing tons of games and redoing them if you didn't diagram them right.
- Posts: 2389
- Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 1:31 pm
Don't forget that JY Ping is an LG genius and knows exactly when rules do and do not apply (a skill you learn through practice). I struggle with this same issue because I'm seldom confident that I've done everything correctly and am not missing anything.