Received: from WAIKATO.S4CC.Symbolics.COM (TCP 20024231532) by AI.AI.MIT.EDU 5 Nov 87 17:01:13 EST Received: from ROCKY-MOUNTAINS.S4CC.Symbolics.COM by WAIKATO.S4CC.Symbolics.COM via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 141683; Thu 5-Nov-87 13:55:41 EST Date: Thu, 5 Nov 87 13:55 EST From: Allan C. Wechsler Subject: Deluxe Magic To: cosell@WILMA.BBN.COM, cube-lovers@AI.AI.MIT.EDU cc: jr@WILMA.BBN.COM, beeler@WILMA.BBN.COM, alatto@WILMA.BBN.COM In-Reply-To: The message of 5 Nov 87 10:26 EST from Bernie Cosell Message-ID: <871105135516.1.ACW@ROCKY-MOUNTAINS.S4CC.Symbolics.COM> Date: Thu, 5 Nov 87 10:26:29 EST From: Bernie Cosell I picked up a "deluxe Rubik's Magic" at Games People Play the other day. It is a twelve-square magic. Has anyone solved this guy yet? My wife has been hacking on it some and and has managed to run it from the starting state (2x6) to the target state (as in the normal Magic, but moreso), but not enough comprehension of it all yet to get all the circle pieces in the right places, yet. Well, /my/ wife solved it. It seems to be more fun that the normal magic because if you ignore the circles you can make a bunch of interesting shapes (the big-hollow- square was neat to blunder into). You bet! As a matter of fact the order-6 puzzle is so much more fun than the order-4 that I am wondering whether higher orders might be even more fun. In my opinion the order-4 cube was /less/ fun than the order-3, and it's a pleasure to see a puzzle where bigger really is better. Jenny and I have a conjecture that if a given flat shape is possible, a flat shape that is derived from the possible one by moving a single square one step diagonally -- is impossible. There is probably a parity argument lurking somewhere that can prove this. Is a similar puzzle with triangular tiles possible?