« on: January 12, 2008, 07:31:40 AM »
QuoteDo you find this technique to be usable in most grouping games? Pure grouping games are usually the hardest for me, but I have never used chains like this.
I am at a total loss about why you have trouble connecting multiple conditionals that have common conditions.
I don't mean this phrase towards you, but it is relevant. "keep it simple stupid"
I do not have a problem doing it, I just never thought of doing these questions like this. I just ran through the rules each time something changed, but this is obviously a better strategy.
My main question was if this technique is usable in most grouping games. The June 1996 has two grouping games that threw me for a loop and while I don't see the possibility of making chains as described in the thread you posted, graphing the possibility for each of the two constrained sets in the last game, FG and KM, instead of listing the rules separately will make things progress more quickly.
The last game of June '96 has a lot of linking going on., the third game on that test does not.
P <--/--> F G <--/--> H
J <--/--> K M
Note that F&G will never be with K&M since it is 3 per group.
Of course, the rules can be written out differently:
Ok, that's pretty much how I went about solving that problem the second time through. The only difference is that I diagrammed FG ->