• Technus@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    113
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 个月前

    Say what you will about people who play Minesweeper but it’s a fucking rush when you end up in a situation like this.

    You have no choice but to take a deep breath and just pick one.

    There’s no real consequences to losing but it sure as hell feels like it’s life and death.

  • Hugucinogens@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    6 个月前

    Sometimes, it do be like that

    Some of the better minesweeper clients have a “Prevent guessing” mode. Otherwise you can accept the 50-50

  • johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    6 个月前

    If you like minesweeper but hate these random picks, I really recommend the Hexcells series. They’re fun puzzle games that can be solved purely with logic. Kind of a cross between minesweeper and sudoku.

      • GoosLife@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        6 个月前

        Also this isn’t a 50/50 chance to lose. You can win by placing all the flags without clearing all safe squares. So you’re guaranteed to win here by just flagging one, then the other if the first didn’t do the trick.

        • bstix@feddit.dk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          5 个月前

          I’m not sure that is a normal win condition. Most places describe a win as being when all safe fields are cleared, not if the flags are placed correctly or at all.

          • GoosLife@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 个月前

            Oh it isn’t? I was sure it was, I used to play a lot of minesweeper. In some of those versions, you definitely didn’t have to uncover all empty squares. The goal was just to uncover enough information to tell the game where the mines are. But if that’s not a universal rule, then that’s not really helpful lol. But then again I don’t think I ever played any versions where this could happen because, like the other guy suggested, the puzzles I used to play were all meant to be solvable without guessing.

            • LostWon@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              5 个月前

              The one most people know from the 1990s (Definitely on Windows 3.1, and probably Win 95) specifically was won only when all non-mine spaces were safely revealed. I know in my own case at least, I determined early on that flags were superfluous and ignored them in favour of better times.

              But maybe at some point there was a game mode that let you finish by marking flags only, even when clear squares weren’t all revealed? It wouldn’t be the main game mode (or even present in the version I know), but I could see if that existed out there somewhere.

              edit I saw it confirmed by someone below there are indeed people playing newer versions of the game that have a “guess-free” mode.

        • fidodo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 个月前

          I don’t think that’s true on the basic Windows version most people are familiar with?

          • Natanael@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 个月前

            All flags must be simultaneously correct for all bombs (none left out) for the win condition to happen. Flag all bombs you’re certain of and then guess the rest until you got the right combination

        • n0m4n@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 个月前

          And I just jumped on one square to get it over with. If I survived, I could win, otherwise I could start a new game right away. Doh!

      • johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        6 个月前

        I don’t think the existence of no guess mode (something that I don’t think existed the last time I played stock minesweeper) would prevent people from wanting to try a fun game in a similar vein.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 个月前

          There’s a competitive scene for Minesweeper, and they don’t use the basic Windows version anymore. Too many issues like this.

          • LostWon@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 个月前

            Oh I see. Does it look similar to the picture above? I’m used to the earlier version.

  • Agent641@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 个月前

    When you ask her what’s the matter and she says “Take a fucking guess!”

    Do not, my brothers, take a guess.

  • BustinJiber@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    6 个月前

    I know everybody needs to know this so minesweeper.online has No Guessing Mode… and also a lot more than that!

    • VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 个月前

      Hexcells Infinite is also supposed to be fair play, but Hard Mode is hard so I haven’t confirmed that.

      • BustinJiber@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 个月前

        Haven’t played Hexcells in forever… But those games (and all the other ones from the same developer) are in fact guessing free, which is the absolute bane of all fans of Minesweeper.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    6 个月前

    My wife used to play Minesweeper on the HUGE grid and did it super fast. I could occasionally win on the small one. If it was easy.

  • mathemachristian@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    6 个月前
    Extreme dork doing an ackshually alert

    This is not a case of “Schrödingers cat” because which field is the bomb and which is empty is already determined. The information is present in the memory of the program prior to the observation. Schrödingers cat is a paradox about a quantum superposition where two states exist simultaneously but are collapsed into a definite one by the act of observation. The cats fate is tied to the states of this quantum and therefore prior to observation the cat is both alive and dead, since both states exist simultaneously. It is only after observation that the definite state is determined.

    • elrik@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 个月前

      The game could be programmed in such a way that the state isn’t determined ahead of time.

      Or you, the player, the computer and the game state could all be in the infinitely branching, never collapsing wave function of the many-world hypothesis where every outcome exists.

    • xionzui@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 个月前

      But the state of the cat is also already determined in a real experiment because it is linked to the outside through air and the walls of the box via vibrations and temperature. Probably even through photons coming off the cat hitting the box. I don’t know if there’s any way to fully disentangle it from the experimenter. This theoretical cat superposition only exists as a thought experiment

      • mathemachristian@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 个月前

        Right, it’s meant to extrapolate the idea of two states existing simultaneously from the very abstract mathematical formulas used to express it into something more comprehensible to show the absurdity of the idea.

    • MightyGalhupo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 个月前

      Shut up, the joke is that you have no way to know which is which (and from my experience, the one with the mine is whichever one you choose, kinda like dropping bread with butter and the butter is always the side that hits the ground)

    • TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 个月前

      schrodingers comment: if I don’t read it, did you make it?

      we need to make more memes mocking the abuse of this concept

    • Mango@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 个月前

      You’re wrong. Quantum isn’t how the world is, but how the mathematical model is. The superposition is “we don’t know yet because we haven’t looked”. The truth is present in reality just like minesweeper’s information is present in memory.

  • aeronmelon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    6 个月前

    Minesweeper has the power to make you so angry that you get up from the computer, walk into the living room, and start reading a book to take you mind off things.

  • Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 个月前

    Is schrodinger’s bomb a good joke here? The bomb is not simultaneously on both squares until measured, it is only on one. It doesn’t change or err “spin”

    • bitwaba@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      5 个月前

      That’s the joke. It’s a 50/50 choice, yet somehow (it feels like) you get it wrong 100% of the time. So the mine is in superposition being both present and not present under a tile. When you click the tile, you collapse the wave from and the mine appears in the tile you clicked.

  • ieightpi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    6 个月前

    I wish I understood Minesweeper better. If anyone feels inclined to explain this situation with how the rules work, id greatly appreciate it.

    • nadiaraven@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      6 个月前

      The goal of the game is to click on all of the squares without a bomb, without clicking on any square with a bomb. Each number represents exactly how many bombs are touching that square, including diagonally. When you logically narrow down which square has a bomb in it (E.g. because there is only one unclicked square touching a square with a 1), you put a flag on it, representing that there’s a bomb underneath it. In this image, there is a square with a number 4. This square is touching three flagged squares, representing three bombs, and two squares that may or may not have a bomb. We know that there must be one more bomb touching the 4, but it’s impossible to narrow down which square has the bomb. So you have to click on one of the squares, and there’s a 50/50 chance that either you guess right, or you step on a bomb and lose the game. It’s a fairly common scenario in an expert level game.

  • r00ty@kbin.life
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 个月前

    Just fence off those two squares forever, and we’ll never talk about it again.