next »

[JWDiaz]

What are the designers opinions about "number of moves" to solve a puzzle versus "number of holes" in the puzzle?

It seems to me that many designers go to extremes making puzzles that are practically hollow for the sake of increasing the number of moves.

The craftmanship on these puzzles must be very close to perfect for them to look good.

[Eric Fuller]

Number of moves is of course the number of moves to solve the puzzle.

Number of holes means how many voids inside the puzzle.  The ones that are really high level (lots of moves) with large amounts of void space can be a pain in the butt to solve, because there's so much space that it becomes almost a dexterety puzzl to solve it.  High level puzzles with few voids are a pleasure to solve since the moves tend to be more discrete and the whole thing stays together better during the solving process.

[Canuck]

What are the designers opinions about "number of moves" to solve a puzzle versus "number of holes" in the puzzle?

I'd be very interested to hear what 'designers' think of that as well

[Johan Heyns]

I don't design, I only make and lean towawrds the higher level burrs and board burrs.  (David Rousseau, Alfons Eykmans, Bill Cutler and Jerry MacFarland type of designs)

I've made about 60 different puzzles for my collection in the last year.  My experience was as follows: It depends on the unit size you pick.  Some puzzles can handle a bigger unit cube and displays and assembles very nicely.  Other ones lean more to a smaller unit cube which makes the pieces smaller and more manageble, especially when the dexterity part that Eric speaks of comes into play.  When I made X-ray Vision (RKB), my unit was 20mm and I battled my backside off.  With Extreme Torture I used 15mm and it made it so much easier. 

It also depends on the type of puzzle.  Both of the above is plate/board burrs with an open structure, whereas an 18 piece burr would tend to be more manageble since the pieces are against each other and give support that way.  On the Binary Burr I made the main frame pieces (the four corners) were 45x45x165mm, and it worked 100% due to the support from the pieces next to it, same for Quadlock 1.

I would say in general that it is a combination of factors, and it would depend mostly on your previous experience in making and / or assembling these beasts.  There are also some designs that are inherently "loose" which, if you don't know it in advance, frustrates the hell out of you once its been made and you assemble it and then discover this floppy "attitude".  Might also be crappy workmanship on my part?

[Eric Fuller]

once its been made and you assemble it and then discover this floppy "attitude".  Might also be crappy workmanship on my part?

Probably not...some puzzles are just like that and it's not apparent in Burr Tools.

Funny thing about puzzlemaking....as you get better, your work tends to get smaller.  It's much more difficult to accurately work with .5 units as opposed to .75, and variences in tolerance stand out much more.  So working smaller is a good thing IMHO

[Canuck]

once its been made and you assemble it and then discover this floppy "attitude".  Might also be crappy workmanship on my part?

Probably not...some puzzles are just like that and it's not apparent in Burr Tools.

Funny thing about puzzlemaking....as you get better, your work tends to get smaller.  It's much more difficult to accurately work with .5 units as opposed to .75, and variences in tolerance stand out much more.  So working smaller is a good thing IMHO

Yeah, that is so true...I remember reading that on Trevor Wood's website years ago!

[Johan Heyns]

Thing is, most of us fall into a comfort zone and tend to stay there.  If I can get stock smaller and as accurate, I will probably go smaller. 

I include a mail her from Alfons Eyckmans:

Hello Johan
 
I received your puzzles today, they are big, but beautiful.
They are gleaming, what do you use to do that.
when i use varnish the pieces became to big and i can not assebly the puzzle.
 
Groeten Alfons
The smaller it becomes, the more difficult it is to manipulate without breaking, especially the higher order stuff that goe through quite a lot of moves to get the pieces out.  For those the minimum I might contemplate would be a unit of 10mm, but 15mm is better IMHO.

[Jack Krijnen]

Many voids inside the puzzles increase the chance on the existence of not intended rotational moves in the solution path. This chance is bigger for 'open' constructions as for instance Pelican98 or my Twister (and indeed, both have shorter solutions with rotational moves). I think this is a serious flaw in the design though hard to detect; I do not know of any program to check on this. As Johan remarks, for the 18-piece burr (my favorite) the danger is less; although many voids normally mean a lot of movable pieces which gives the impression of a less quality; it feels like larger tolerances.
Also: many voids often imply you have to use additional measures to create a unique design, like using a colour pattern or an inscription. There are many pitfalls in the life of the designer...

[Johan Heyns]

Jack, All things being equal, I take my hat off to you guys doing these designs.  I will invest my time to make them as well as I can, but the designing I'll leave to you. BRAVO!! 

BTW, both your Twisters are on my list for my collection, but will have to fill numbers 65 and 66 in the line of puzzles that I intend to make next year.

[Robert Yarger]

Gee, I don't make burrs, but the same thing applies to puzzleboxes I think.  Puzzleboxes can be simple or complex, but there is no wrong way to make one.  There are sluthes who like them both ways.   

My idea of a perfect burr would be one with no spaces at all, but pulling out one piece partially would produce multiple spaces in which to move other things around. 

Also, what I would really like to see is a burr with a two piece segment inside that can be manipulated around only by the movments of other pieces pushing against it.  in such an instance, a move that was not possible before would suddenly become possible after another burr piece was moved and then recanted to change its position internally.
 

[Jack Krijnen]

My idea of a perfect burr would be one with no spaces at all, but pulling out one piece partially would produce multiple spaces in which to move other things around. 

I think this is not possible. When there is no internal space, you can't withhold one piece complete freedom: you need internal space for moving up to the blockade.

[JWDiaz]

What if the first move introduced an external hole into the puzzle?
Of course, you'd have to make it imposible to remove the key piece.
One stop on each extremity would do.

[Jack Krijnen]

That should be possible. But how to make a nice looking puzzle with this idea?

[Eric Fuller]

My idea of a perfect burr would be one with no spaces at all, but pulling out one piece partially would produce multiple spaces in which to move other things around. 

I think this is not possible. When there is no internal space, you can't withhold one piece complete freedom: you need internal space for moving up to the blockade.

One of William Waite's cube puzzles worked this way.

[Canuck]

Yeah, good one Eric   William's 'Allsides Cube' very cool puzzle, I have one of his keychain versions