(This is one of the threads that got lost during the server crash, isn't it?)
I've seen a couple web implementations of this and I think this is the worst yet. Unfortunately, my reason for that statement would also be a spoiler.
If you enjoy this type of puzzle, then you would love a game called Zendo by Looney Labs. You can find out all kinds of information about from its page at Board Game Geek. It is, without a doubt, the game I've played the most in my entire life. I think my experience with Zendo made Petals almost too easy.
Joined: Aug 19, 2004
Yep, this thread got lost during the crash. But I did not create it then, and actually that was the first I heard of it.
It was not easy for me to figure this one out, and I spent about 5 minutes each day over a week or so, before it hit me Dunno if that makes me smart or dumb. I agree that the web version is no good.
It took me about ten minutes. After about 8 minutes, I Googled "Petals around the Rose" and found several other implementations of the puzzle. I tried a different version, and then almost immediately got the solution. I totally understand Ryan's statement! This is a bad implementation, and I can't say why without giving it away. Either that, or it's a good implementation, and the others are bad for making it easier!
Seriously Guys, its so frustrating... yet so simple. I'm glad I got it ... it would have kept me awake for months had I not got it....
Joined: Feb 18, 2005
Originally posted by kayal cox: It never struck me to find a shortcut for the solution.
[ June 30, 2005: Message edited by: kayal cox ]
Let's call that what it is: cheating. (Which I'm sure is what kayal was implying with the .)
To those that looked at the source code: You would have felt a LOT more satisfaction if you had figured it out on your own without cheating. If you're about to reply, "It's valid to look at the source code, because the page author made it easily available," then let me pre-reply to that with, "It was a puzzle, and you should know the implied 'rules' against looking at the source code."
If you looked for source code to see how goofy the author was, that's fine. But if you read through it to become a potentate, then I'm quite disappointed with you indeed.
However, Mr. Katz's case brings up an interesting point: apparently it's quite UNsatisfying to know the answer without knowing the reason behind it. <Imitation of Nelson, the bully from "The Simpsons" TV show> Ha ha. </Imitation>