2 жыл бұрын
2 жыл бұрын
3 жыл бұрын
4 жыл бұрын
4 жыл бұрын
4 жыл бұрын
4 жыл бұрын
Пікірлер
@3141minecraft 4 күн бұрын
12:44 think of it this way: if you have 2 eights in a shape of an 8, that only forces 13 mines but having 2 eights on somewhere far away forces 16 mines. That makes the 2 eights generating in a shape of an 8 a little bit more likely.
@ashleyparks1559 7 күн бұрын
You can actually get a 9 and A 2D mine Sweeter game you need To just play the variant that only has like double or triple mines.
@scorpiobtw. 9 күн бұрын
nice
@yeeterdeleter0117 22 күн бұрын
One time I randomly clicked and found an 8
@DavidPolley-ek9bh 24 күн бұрын
A row of 6s across the board
@Watermelon_cat815 Ай бұрын
bro can you show me the code
@GamesComputersPlay Ай бұрын
there is a link to the github repo in the description. As far as I can see tetris.com changed the appearance, so most probably it will not work anymore.
@Watermelon_cat815 Ай бұрын
@@GamesComputersPlay k
@brandomattiaabbate8097 Ай бұрын
Why is the smallest token the best? I want to pick the token I always want (the car).
@GamesComputersPlay Ай бұрын
There is bigger chance that other player will not notice it and forget to ask fo rthe rent... It's a long shot, but still
@me-pk2kb Ай бұрын
Ideas for future games: is it possible you change the buy prices of props to test the win rate? E.g. Greens cost 20 more dollars and compute win rate, it's super useful stuff for auctions. Additionally, can you compute some of these for two players? Railroads are definitely not worth buying w 2 players.
@Tepsu 2 ай бұрын
Personally I like it when I get √2
@ionized_salt 2 ай бұрын
Hey! I have no expertise in the area so please take it with a grain of salt, but the reason the double eight paradox is unintuitive is likely due to the possibility of spatial positions. I don’t know the math behind it so I’m not sure if you had taken it into account, but I thought of it as two 8s occurring separately means once an 8 is placed down the other 8 has all the other space on the board to form. This results in many possibilities across the board, compared to a double connected 8 where it only forms either up or down, with no possibility to span across the board. In other words, for the single 8s there could be N number of positions while double 8 only has 2 (since it has to form from the preexisting 8). I hope I conveyed my ideas well enough and I wonder if this will change the calculated probability at all. This could all be complete bogus though haha. Have a good one!
@dulinak6251 2 ай бұрын
Very cool
@Olya_Weasel 2 ай бұрын
Только что нашла 8, поэтому я здесь.
@michaelmetcalfe639 2 ай бұрын
I can confirm that intermediate games can be won in one click I had it happen once. Probably blew all my luck for life on that minesweeper game 😂
@davidhopkins6946 2 ай бұрын
There have been 2 occasions where I got an 8 in expert mode. The first time, I unluckily hit a mine before I got to the part of the board with the 8. The second time, I solved the whole board, but the game unexpectedly quit a fraction of a second later. I also had one instance of 2 sevens with no shared mines in expert mode (i.e. a total of 14 mines around the sevens). They were by no means near each other on that board. I have never had an 8 in intermediate, but have had 7 in intermediate three times.
@davidhopkins6946 2 ай бұрын
The reason why the odds of an 8 in the shape of an 8 are not as unlikely as you think is because 3 of those mines are shared between the eights. Instead of the eights having 16 mines total around them, they only have 13 mines total around them.
@unknownkingdom 2 ай бұрын
Luimarco?
@esrohm6460 2 ай бұрын
wouldn't 8 buddy's likeliness be explained by you needing less mines to do it over 2 separate once. normally you need 16 mines for 2 8 but if they border you only need 13 which gives more ways the mines can be arranged to create this outcome
@CrashGordon94 2 ай бұрын
Watched this a couple times now, I think my only comment is the point of the "housing shortage" strat is that you'll run out of pieces and then other players can't build them unless you accept proxy pieces or such. I don't think your simulation accounts for that. Then again, it only works in a real game if your group says no to all proxies.
@dunodisko2217 3 ай бұрын
Wouldn't the 3x3 square of mines be impossible because the center mine isn't adjacent to a number?
@user-zt4hb9gn6s 3 ай бұрын
jajajajajja
@Crimson-Hat 3 ай бұрын
9 in minesweeper is real. I had one once. 8 mines in the game, and one under my chair I was sitting on. Luckily I know how to defuse a landmine.
@Mozartminecraft 3 ай бұрын
The double 8s in the shape of an 8 is lower because three of the mines are shared between both of the 8s
@user-fv5fq 3 ай бұрын
The worst thing about 8-s are that they are extremely random when you encounter them in a run, you never know if this is a mine or a 8-number cell. Only worse if you start on it.
@jacobsmith42392 3 ай бұрын
I would love your moving background for my screensaver
@PhriekshoTV 3 ай бұрын
I didn't care much about Minesweeper until I played Demoncrawl. It's a minesweeper roguelite and it became one of my favorite games of all time
@CaseyEm 3 ай бұрын
O 0 5 ______
@BigBootyBasti 3 ай бұрын
The double 8 in a shape is so close to just 2 double 8 because you have 3 less mines to place correctly
@as-ng5ln 3 ай бұрын
But what about 9?
@creativforcelite7942 3 ай бұрын
Wait is that Rimworld on your taskbar open in the background? 3:02
@dxjxc91 3 ай бұрын
I don't think I've ever seen a 9 (a mine surrounded by 8 mines) or an 8 shaped like an 8.
@drt1605 3 ай бұрын
Sometimes YT algorithm works! I had no idea that I needed to watch a computer program combat another. Thank you. If you ever want to punish yourself further, maybe try to identify strategies used by the top humans that might be included in the Python program?
@s_m_v 3 ай бұрын
Makes himself out to be a math expert then proceeds to use terms like "One-hundred times less..." Yah, nah... Hard pass.
@GamesComputersPlay 3 ай бұрын
I didn't claim to be an expert in English though... seconds language, you know...
@s_m_v 3 ай бұрын
@@GamesComputersPlay Does not have anything to do with first or second languages. You are not the only one stuck on using that mathematically nonsensical term. It has to do with what formula are you actually expressing with a phrase like "One-hundred times smaller" or "Ten times closer" or "Thirty-five times slower"? I guess what I am asking is, can you show your work? I can *assume* you mean "1/100 the size of..." but you know what can happen when you start assuming.
@GamesComputersPlay 3 ай бұрын
@@s_m_v Yes, your assumption is correct, by saying "X is 100 times smaller than Y" I am trying to convey the idea X = Y/100. Can it be interpreted in a different way, is there some ambiguity I am missing? Am I walking into a trap by asking it?
@s_m_v 3 ай бұрын
@@GamesComputersPlay No, Sir. No trap. In your example above, your words use multiplication yet your equation uses division. "100 times" anything is going to result in a value one-hundred times _larger_ than the value of the second number, not a smaller value. For example, instead of "X is one-hundred times smaller than Y" (which cannot be accurately expressed by a formula), one should instead say something like "X is 1/100th the size of Y" or "Y is 100 times _larger_ than X".
@GamesComputersPlay 3 ай бұрын
@@s_m_v I see. You are saying "times" means "multiplication". Okay, fair, but this is where I disagree: Since dividsion is the reverse operation to multiplication the same way as "times smaller" is the reverse of "times larger", I would say "times smaller" implies division. It's either this or we'd have a rather clunky way or conveying the idea that something is smaller, and the size is about if you divide the original thing by X. What would be a "human" shorthand for it then? Having said that, I did sanity check and googled the question. Indeed, there seem to be a a group fo people considering "X times less" a sloppy phrasing, mathematically speaking. Explanation is: "X time less" does contain an ambiguity, as it can imply: - original amount multiply by 1/X. A = 12, B is 3 time smaller, B = 12 / 3 = 4 - X time subtracted from the original amount. Apparently, it could work like this: A=12, B is 3 time smaller. B = A - A*3 = -24 To which I say: really ?!?!?!?! There is a situation where "X times smaller than A" there will be a valid question whether it means A/X or (X-1)*(-A)? Seriously? I try to be a stickler for the precise language myself (well, minus the language barrier), but I'd say that's a false call for the presicion police.
@sunmarsh 3 ай бұрын
Genuine question. Is it possible to calculate the chances that members of Congress made such large returns on investments in 2023 without using insider trading knowledge?
@GamesComputersPlay 3 ай бұрын
You don't want to ask a Russian guy that...
@maxryder9321 3 ай бұрын
12:04 I guessed 2.9m and I’m fairly proud of that estimate, especially considering how wrong the guy on the video was.
@bhadbhris 3 ай бұрын
what about 4 corner 5’s?
@lonkhoi6764 3 ай бұрын
200k? i thought it was much more likely to get 1 click, i remember i got like 10 of them in just like maybe a couple thousand minesweeper games on the default minesweeper game on laptop
@PirateDad12 3 ай бұрын
What about four 5’s arranged in a 2x2 so that they are collectively surrounded by mines?
@Buffalo_Soldier 3 ай бұрын
12:49 my intuition was that you use 3 less chance-mines but require more specific placement. Because of that when you said results surprised you I thought they would be two same-chance events. In other words for 2 eights you need 16 mines in specific locations, for 2 8ths in shape of 8 you need only 13 mines but in more specific locations
@realitant 3 ай бұрын
For 8 in the shape of on 8, it's unclear if your counting the two 8's being on the same row or not. If so, I would argue that doesn't fit the requirements and should be called, "8's sharing 3 mines"
@geckoo9190 3 ай бұрын
Say, what is the probability of getting three 3s in a row when hitting corners?, because I´m pretty sure that I am way above the average on that one, or two 3s and a mine
@windowsmoke 3 ай бұрын
What about boards with only 1s?
@ThainaYu 3 ай бұрын
8 near another eight might be easy because you already have 3 on one side. Only need 5 to fulfill 8-8
@matthewwallendal2146 3 ай бұрын
If your first click displays an 8, isn't it possible that it was a 9 and there mine got moved?
@JayVal90 3 ай бұрын
The 8 in an 8 is because you are talking about two different things. The middle 3 mines overlap, so there’s less probability needed.
@martonnagy8939 3 ай бұрын
3:10 Come on now! We can play some 4D minesweeper.
@Hans_Magnusson 3 ай бұрын
Yeah, I did an implementation in Java. Not in JavaScript… The real Java… Using set with operation on the sets! Yeah, I know I rock! The problem you have created is that you have stolen and destroyed every computer I own. Don’t expect any miracle on this side of getting me a new laptop!
@dorithegreat6155 3 ай бұрын
The eights paradox completely makes sense to me. If you have two eights on your board it can involve up to 16 mines. However, having two eights next to each other only depends on 13 mines since some are shared between the two eights. So it should actually be more likely to get the two eights next to each other than not sharing any mines between them, purely because having to independently and randomly placing more mines in specific spots exponentially reduces the odds with every added mine. It also makes perfect sense that out of all possible arrangements of two eights the most likely one is them being adjacent, for exactly the same reasons
@gamerkalvin8663 3 ай бұрын
Fun fact I got 8 on the first click click in the middle and make sure there are 8 mines in a 3x3 square and there is a 100% chance you will get 8
@supersandwichgoku9645 4 ай бұрын
Thank you so much for this! It's worked pretty great so far, Chex Quest 3 on ZDoom is the only one I've particularly ran into problems with running the script on.
@Guy_Sandler 4 ай бұрын
4d minesweeper when?