Entries
Entry C1: Contact
Divide the grid into dominoes. Each number indicates how many dominoes are orthogonally adjacent to the domino containing the number. Dominoes may contain any number of given numbers.
This entry is part of a set, submitted on a page resembling my website (which unfortunately has been taken down). The author has even kindly made a pzpr fork implementation of this genre!
My commentary
Entry submitted by: lemononmars
Would I vote for this normally? No
This is a pretty simple puzzle. Since I like bolder, more innovative entries, I wouldn't vote for this puzzle for the showcase. But it doesn't mean the puzzle is bad; a simple puzzle is nice, and I think this is a good introduction and stepping stone for learning how to solve Contact.
Entry C2: Contact
Divide the grid into dominoes. Each number indicates how many dominoes are orthogonally adjacent to the domino containing the number. Dominoes may contain any number of given numbers.
This entry is part of a set, submitted on a page resembling my website (which unfortunately has been taken down). The author has even kindly made a pzpr fork implementation of this genre!
My commentary
Entry submitted by: lemononmars
Would I vote for this normally? No
Internal holes in Contact are definitely something I haven't explored much yet. (Sure, I made a puzzle on a weird grid, but it doesn't actively use the internal holes, it's meant to be a journey.) The puzzles makes some use of internal holes; the main impression I got was, weird grids do naturally lead to very few valid domino partitions. I like the 1–6 theming. I know lemon had to fix this a couple of times, so I can see this theme of restricted clues being particularly difficult to design. Ultimately, I don't think it's remarkable enough for a showcase, which is the reason for my "no" vote. But it's still a nice puzzle.
Entry C3: Contact
Divide the grid into dominoes. Each number indicates how many dominoes are orthogonally adjacent to the domino containing the number. Dominoes may contain any number of given numbers.
This entry is part of a set, submitted on a page resembling my website (which unfortunately has been taken down). The author has even kindly made a pzpr fork implementation of this genre!
My commentary
Entry submitted by: lemononmars
Would I vote for this normally? Yes ✅
From experience, writing Contact puzzles with a particular aesthetic theme is hard without some clues being redundant. While there are a couple here, the theme is impressive enough to me that I didn't particularly notice it. I also like having all clues 4–6. Usually, having smaller numbers near the edge is how you break into Contact puzzles, so the lack of any such easy break-in is particularly noticeable. It does make for a pretty difficult puzzle, with an opening driven by a new pattern (adjacent 4-6) which I also only discovered pretty recently. The logic is fun, the aesthetic is great; this is one of my favorite puzzles in the showcase.
Entry C4: Contact
Divide the grid into dominoes. Each number indicates how many dominoes are orthogonally adjacent to the domino containing the number. Dominoes may contain any number of given numbers.
My commentary
Entry submitted by: Rever
Would I vote for this normally? Yes ✅
Although Contact was originally set on square grids, I have since warmed up to hex grids. It lets you use a larger variety of clues (up to 8, and internal clues go 4–8 compared to 4–6 for square grid). I do like all of 2–8 being used in this puzzle, and I also like the various aesthetic themes: the multiple runs of increasing numbers, and the symmetry between bottom half and top half (every clue in top half is exactly 1 more than the corresponding clue in bottom half). The logic is surprisingly tricky for its small size, but it's not too demanding.
As I said, normally I like puzzles that go bold. A puzzle that doesn't try to invent much needs to be exceptional in other aspects. I think this puzzles passes the bar.
Entry C5: Contact
Divide the grid into dominoes. Each number indicates how many dominoes are orthogonally adjacent to the domino containing the number. Dominoes may contain any number of given numbers.
My commentary
Entry submitted by: athin
Would I vote for this normally? No
Too large. I generally don't like puzzles that are large for the sake of being large, because it tends to become "find where you can do the next step". This is made worse with Contact, because the next step tends to have some sort of lookahead, no matter how small; it gets exhausting easily to find such deduction. And the puzzle itself isn't easy either. It feels like a lot of work. Maybe part of it is me not mastering my own creation and not recognizing specific patterns yet, but hey, that does mean I personally don't like it.
One thing I appreciate is the aesthetic theme. It might be a simple 3-fold rotational symmetry, but the clues are fairly sparse, and I've learned that it's tricky to set Contact puzzles with any particular aesthetic theme. I also think, while the prospect of looking through the entire grid for the next step over and over doesn't excite me, some others might like it. I wouldn't vote for this entry, but that just means it doesn't click with me; it likely clicks with several other solvers just fine.
Entry G1: Greener Grasses
Divide the grid into regions of the indicated size. No region may be orthogonally adjacent to another region whose contents is completely included in the former region. In other words, every region must envy every neighbor in some way.
See an example on my logic archive.
My commentary
Entry submitted by: athin
Would I vote for this normally? Yes ✅
The solve of this puzzle is unusual; it's what people would call a "theory" puzzle, requiring some mathematical argument. In general, theory puzzles impress me as they generally have very novel logical path, and this is no exception. That's why it gets my vote.
Using black and white circles is questionable, because the white circles are much harder to see. (It doesn't help that the missing ones are white circles.) I did recommend changing the symbols: either to more legible ones, or lean hard into the meme aspect and use white circle and square. But it's a minor issue and I still like the puzzle.
Entry G2: Greener Grasses
Divide the grid into regions of the indicated size. No region may be orthogonally adjacent to another region whose contents is completely included in the former region. In other words, every region must envy every neighbor in some way.
See an example on my logic archive.
This entry came with a background image as a theme. Unfortunately I have to present a version without the image to make it more readable, but you can see the original form of the entry in all its beautiful glory.
My commentary
Entry submitted by: dpad
Would I vote for this normally? Yes ✅
The entry as submitted had the background image. Unfortunately I prefer my puzzles legible, but I think the meme aspect is still there with the lowercase letters spelling words like that. Surprisingly, the puzzle itself is not a joke. It's very scarce on clues, which makes it a theory puzzle, in a similar vein as "penalty theory" puzzles like Heyawake and Nurikabe. Normally I think 5-cell regions are way too large for Greener Grasses, but for this one, it's very well executed. It gets my vote for being a meme puzzle yet still very interesting to solve.
Entry G3: Greener Grasses
Divide the grid into regions of the indicated size. No region may be orthogonally adjacent to another region whose contents is completely included in the former region. In other words, every region must envy every neighbor in some way.
See an example on my logic archive.
This entry is tough! I believe I have confirmed it is unique, but I'm not 100% certain.
My commentary
Entry submitted by: athin
Would I vote for this normally? No
Too large. This is the largest Greener Grasses puzzle I know. I've written 7x7 and 9x9. athin previously wrote a 13x13 one. Honestly, it's quite intimidating to see this showcase attracting a 12x12, a 15x11, and a 15x15 puzzle, but the first two solved very well. This one, though, I felt exhausted looking for a particular symbol that would pave the way for the next step, over and over again. I don't really like large puzzles for the sake of being large, and this certainly felt like it didn't have to be large.
I do appreciate the aesthetic theme. Flowers were my suggestion; athin did want to theme this puzzle with flowers, but didn't know how to do that, so I pointed out Unicode emojis were allowed on Penpa+. The squares have striped patterns, and the fountains are clearly different from the flowers. The pattern is nice to look at. Just, it makes the board pretty dense of clues, which makes Greener Grasses really tricky.
Being large and hard makes me not want to vote for it, but perhaps others would like a good meaty puzzle with pretty colors.
Entry M1: Maximal Archipelago (Maximum)
Shade some cells black. Black cells form a "dynasty": black cells may not be orthogonally adjacent, and the remaining white cells must form an orthogonally contiguous area. In addition, the black cells form a "maximal" dynasty: it is impossible to shade any more black cell to the solution without breaking either of the above dynasty rules.
A cross (X) means that cell may not be shaded. A number tells the number of cells in the row/column that is shaded. However, the maximal dynasty condition must be true ignoring the clues. That is, if it's possible to shade an extra black cell while maintaining dynasty, it is illegal, even if the extra black cell would be on a cross or would break a count.
Maximum variant: Among all possible Maximal Archipelago solutions, find the one solution with the maximum number of black cells.
My commentary
Entry submitted by: Rever
Would I vote for this normally? No
This puzzle was submitted because of a misunderstanding of the "maximal" rule, and over the word "maximal" in general. (Yes, Rever thought it meant "maximum" as in the most possible number of black cells.) I did recommend submitting it simply as a variant, and I think it's an interesting puzzle by itself; there's a pretty nice mathematical proof to work out the solution. Unfortunately, I just feel this is no longer Maximal Archipelago, so I can't really vote for it. I also don't think the variant has promise. But if you want an unusual brain workout, this is a good one to try.
Entry N1: Number in Order
Put a number in the given range into each white cell. Some numbers are already given and cannot be changed. Every "word" (a contiguous segment of white cells in a row/column, bounded by either black cells or the edge of the grid) must contain numbers that are consecutive, although not necessarily in order. (For example, 4-6-5 is okay, but 2-4-6 is not.)
My commentary
Entry submitted by: tenth
Would I vote for this normally? Yes ✅
tenth said, while she was working on a puzzle, it "turned into a math contest problem". Well, this is that puzzle, and it sure shows. It has nothing to do with usual Number in Order logic that I'm familiar with. But its logical path is very unusual and rewarding, making good use of the mechanics of the ruleset. I enjoyed my time working through this, to the point that I sketched a proper proof.
My proof sketch (very much spoilers)
The column with the 0 will be 0–6 (in some order). That means every row will have a 6 and a 7, so in total, there are seven 6s and seven 7s. One of the 6s is in the column with the 0, so one 7 will not be paired with a 6. That means that column will be 7–13.
Now take the column with the 0–6 and the column with the 7–13. They have to be paired up the obvious way: the rows will be 0–7, 1–8, ..., 6–13 in some order, with the columns also aligning up. The board is now fully known, except that rows and columns can be permuted. This also means, once we fix the row and the column with the 0, every other number is the sum of its corresponding row and column numbers.
Finally, it reduces into a summation problem. The 3 must be 1+2 in some order; the 4 can't be 2+2 (because a 2 is used for the 3) and so must be 1+3 in some order; and so on. Perhaps the easiest way to try it is by assuming one symmetry, and flipping the board diagonally if it breaks at the end. ∎
I really like this puzzle, and if I had to rank my favorites, I think this is second place. Do mind you, this puzzle is very unusual — and like many theory puzzles, it's a hit-and-miss and you might not enjoy it. I did enjoy it, so I ranked it highly, but preferences differ. I do think it's very worth it to figure it out, though, or otherwise appreciate the solution.
One final note. This was initially presented with a range of 1–?. I recommended setting the lower bound to 0 so that it's easier to see things in the puzzle. And after my rule change in Number in Order, there's no requirement that the upper bound is reached, so I suggested a meme upper bound of 492. tenth agreed to the changes and so it came to be.
Entry R1: Rampage
Divide the grid into dominoes. Each number represents a rampaging bull, which behaves as follows. The bull first moves to the other cell of the domino it's in, and then moves one extra space (thus breaking through the opposite short edge into a new domino). It then repeats this procedure with the new domino it's in, and so on. The number indicates how many dominoes the bull passes through, including the initial one. As a special case, if the bull never leaves the grid, the number is infinity (∞).
See an example on my logic archive.
This entry is part of a set, submitted on a page resembling my website (which unfortunately has been taken down). The author has even kindly made a pzpr fork implementation of this genre!
My commentary
Entry submitted by: lemononmars
Would I vote for this normally? No
This is a great puzzle, mind you. Rampage is a very tricky genre to write for, and yet lemon managed to write a nice introductory puzzle with a great aesthetic theme. Is it written, or is it discovered? Who knows. I just think it's a tad bit too simple for my like of innovation, so I wouldn't vote for it, but it's still a nice one people should try.
Entry R2: Rampage
Divide the grid into dominoes. Each number represents a rampaging bull, which behaves as follows. The bull first moves to the other cell of the domino it's in, and then moves one extra space (thus breaking through the opposite short edge into a new domino). It then repeats this procedure with the new domino it's in, and so on. The number indicates how many dominoes the bull passes through, including the initial one. As a special case, if the bull never leaves the grid, the number is infinity (∞).
See an example on my logic archive.
This entry is part of a set, submitted on a page resembling my website (which unfortunately has been taken down). The author has even kindly made a pzpr fork implementation of this genre!
My commentary
Entry submitted by: lemononmars
Would I vote for this normally? Yes ✅
I've never actually written a puzzle with ∞ clues. I mean, the genre was created because it could be proven, in a grid without holes, all bulls must leave the grid. But grids of unusual shapes, like having holes or being toroidal, certainly allow for ∞ clues, and seeing them here made me pause and think to discover its logical implications. I'd say this puzzle showed some tricks of these infinities: it requires the solver to figure out the tricks, but it's also small enough so solvers won't be led astray with so many options. Since I haven't done any infinity in my Rampage, it's innovative enough for me to get my vote.
Entry R3: Rampage
Divide the grid into dominoes. Each number represents a rampaging bull, which behaves as follows. The bull first moves to the other cell of the domino it's in, and then moves one extra space (thus breaking through the opposite short edge into a new domino). It then repeats this procedure with the new domino it's in, and so on. The number indicates how many dominoes the bull passes through, including the initial one. As a special case, if the bull never leaves the grid, the number is infinity (∞).
See an example on my logic archive.
This entry is part of a set, submitted on a page resembling my website (which unfortunately has been taken down). The author has even kindly made a pzpr fork implementation of this genre!
My commentary
Entry submitted by: lemononmars
Would I vote for this normally? No
Rampage is a very difficult genre to solve. I made several logical errors while testing this puzzle, and it might have soured my perception. As the inventor of this genre, it does frighten me how scary a Rampage puzzle can look, with very sparse clues that still solves uniquely. I think the puzzle is logically fine, but perhaps the unfortunate moment of me being soured by the puzzle made me hesitant in voting for it. I do think it's worth it to do, because the steps feel very foreign from usual logic puzzles.
Entry T1: Turnaround
Draw a loop traveling orthogonally on cells. The loop must visit all numbers. Each number indicates how many turns the loop makes among the three cells: the number itself, and the cells immediately before and after it in the loop.
This entry is part of a set, submitted on a page resembling my website (which unfortunately has been taken down). The author has even kindly made a pzpr fork implementation of this genre!
My commentary
Entry submitted by: lemononmars
Would I vote for this normally? No
It's a simple puzzle. It doesn't fit with me, since I like more innovative puzzles better. But staying simple isn't a bad thing; it makes for a good introductory puzzle.
Entry T2: Turnaround
Draw a loop traveling orthogonally on cells. The loop must visit all numbers. Each number indicates how many turns the loop makes among the three cells: the number itself, and the cells immediately before and after it in the loop.
This entry is part of a set, submitted on a page resembling my website (which unfortunately has been taken down). The author has even kindly made a pzpr fork implementation of this genre!
My commentary
Entry submitted by: lemononmars
Would I vote for this normally? No
I find this puzzle a bit repetitive. I do like the theming of using only 1 clues, but it also doesn't have many variations to it, so I feel the solve ends up being driven by a lot of long straight lines, which hit clues to form more long straight lines. It's an interesting puzzle that explores the depth of the clues of 1, at least.
Entry T3: Turnaround
This entry is part of a set, submitted on a page resembling my website (which unfortunately has been taken down). The author has even kindly made a pzpr fork implementation of this genre!
This entry is part of a set, submitted on a page resembling my website. The author has even kindly made a pzpr fork implementation of this genre!
My commentary
Entry submitted by: lemononmars
Would I vote for this normally? No
I do notice the theming of this puzzle: not only the squares in a tilted pattern, but also the squares of solid 0/1/2/3 as well as the central square. It gives the puzzle a vibe of being divided into quadrants. What killed the puzzle is the unfortunate blemish at the bottom-left. For me, I feel that if you want to do an aesthetic theme, don't do it halfway. I can't help but wonder if it would have been possible to rework the corner to remove the extra clue.
The logic of the puzzle is nice; the quadrants give the puzzle a distinct feel in each one. It's still enjoyable to solve. My perfectionist view just makes me hesitant in voting for this puzzle, but if you can look past it, there's a good puzzle in it. I guess I can't look past it.
Entry T4: Turnaround (Abacus Circles)
Draw a loop traveling orthogonally on cells. The loop must visit all numbers. Each number indicates how many turns the loop makes among the three cells: the number itself, and the cells immediately before and after it in the loop.
Abacus Circles variant: There are abacus circles (thermometer shapes forming loops) on the grid. Every time the loop visits an abacus circle, note the number of cells visited contiguously along the abacus circle before the loop leaves it. All abacus circles must read the same way, starting from somewhere on the circle and reading in one of the two directions.
Click for an example
The following example shows a loop on two abacus circles. Each abacus circle reads 1-2-2-3 (the left one clockwise, the right one counterclockwise). Note that what matters is the order along the abacus circles, not the order along the loop.
This entry is tough! I believe I have confirmed it is unique, but I'm not 100% certain.
My commentary
Entry submitted by: chaotic_iak
Would I vote for this normally? Yes ✅
This one is my entry! Did you guess right? You can find my design notes on the puzzle in my logic archive.
Would I vote for my own puzzle? Yes, because I'm narcissistic. But also, I think it's a good puzzle. It turns out to be rather difficult, but the logic feels novel and fresh. That said, there are other puzzles that impressed me, and I'm just as happy to see them win.
Entry V1: Rails on Rails
Draw a loop traveling orthogonally on gridpoints. The loop may not touch or cross itself. The loop must visit all gridpoints.
There are some abacus lines (thermometer shapes). Every time the loop crosses an abacus line, note the length of the straight loop segment on the intersection. All abacus lines must read the same way.
Click for an example
The following example shows a loop on two abacus lines. (Note: It doesn't visit all gridpoints; this is just to illustrate how the abacus lines work.) Each abacus circle reads 2-1-1-2-3-3 from the start (the bulb). Note that what matters is the order along the abacus lines, not the order along the loop.
My commentary
Entry submitted by: Menderbug
Would I vote for this normally? Yes ✅
I love this puzzle. It takes the abacus variant and uses it exclusively as the puzzle; the other rules are minimal (a full loop is pretty normal). According to Menderbug, this puzzle initially wanted to start from Rail Loop (hence why taking the length of the straight line crossing the abacus), but turns out other clues weren't needed.
I don't know if this type will hold up on its own; it seems extremely difficult to force a break-in, and this might be a one-trick pony. For a showcase, though, that's perfectly fine; it makes the logic highly unusual and novel. It looks impossible, and yet I managed to find an entirely logical way, and I felt very satisfied and happy with the solve.
This puzzle is certainly my favorite in the whole showcase. Others seem to think similarly highly of this puzzle, and it's well-deserved; the puzzle is impressive.
