Minesweeper Expert Walkthrough - Tips and tricks

[@oliverradosav2475]

Only legends will like this video

[@generic8618]

facts

[@Davidamp]

Proof by contradiction: the game

[@Pintkonan]

the point is that you develop skills where you dont think about this anymore. you see the numbers and combinations of setups and begin to become fast (o:

[@MrSongib]

you still need "luck" 🤣

[@pinospin9588]

Especially when you set to 99 mines

[@robotron6420]

@@MrSongib Sadly, yes. There's moments where you need luck

[@crown_420]

I call it the assumption and cancellation method.

[@hnkul702]

I really like your guide. You basically talked about everything there is to Minesweeper logic in great depth. Having said that, I don't play the Windows version anymore since you need incredible luck to solve most puzzles because of forced guessing. Thankfully there's a Simon Tathem version of Mines that allows for boards as large as your screen, and where you can get the game to ensure the puzzle is possible without making forced guesses (at about 95% success rate). Your first click is always a square with no mines around it. I'm sure you can clear a 35x80 board with 750 mines on it on that game. It's a challenge but one based purely on skill.

[@hnkul702]

Having said that, there is another level of clicking logic that goes beyond the scope of this board, although you would figure it out pretty easily since you know which squares are safe.

[@freegamingcocsashorts7605]

@@hnkul702 :

[@TheKyleFyles]

​@hnkul702 I didn't know about Simon Tathem, thank you!

[@hnkul702]

@@TheKyleFyles No problem! I still enjoy that version! I find that the maximum level of difficulty you can have with that version is to make the board big enough that it fills most of your screen but small enough that the game does not have to shrink the squares (for me, that board is 90x40), and have the mine count be 1/3 of the total squares. I do not recommend exceeding 1/3 of the total, because the algorithm will give up and just lazily shove all the mines into one part of the board, making your game laughably easy.

[@tautvydasa77]

thats what I hate about this game, its that sometimes you just have to guess

[@jacobg8640]

@Khaled Ashrife 8B Korsavadsskolan 7-9 There are points where you absolutely have to guess. If you get to a corner and are left with a 50-50, there's no working your way around it.

[@ders.]

Khaled Ashrife 8B Korsavadsskolan 7-9 Did you watch the video?

[@yourdad5471]

I just died in my very last 2 boxes... And wrong guess... F****

[@yourdad5471]

@@ders. he probably didn't

[@TRBenjiSwiss]

@@jacobg8640 ive gotten to a point where i always lose a 50-50 guess so really is 0-0 for me lmao

[@ChandanKumar-du1of]

I play relatively well these days and I come back often to brush up. Thank you so much!

[@michaelsong5555]

9:10 You don't want to "click randomly." There are two factors to consider when you have no choice but to take risks: 1. See the probability. If you have 3 choices, and only one of them has mine, then you should prefer to click one of those (66% correct). Compared to 1 out of 2, which is (50%). 2. If the chances are the same (such as this video), then click on something that has a good payout -- aka, if you clear one of the mine, then it clears a lot of other cells. Clicking randomly in this particular case was a stupid move, because even though he got the correct one, it still didn't improve his actual situation, and therefore, he had to take another risk right afterwards.

[@georgekyriakou802]

someone had to say that. custom boards can lead to really challenging probability or payout thinking, which is nice when you are already bored playing by the same standard techniques

[@kilgour22]

A true random click actually has a 79.375% chance of not being a mine. Technically, a random click is superior to the vast majority of guesses. Obviously there's information given by the current layout, and it's important to calculate the probabilities of various squares. A pseudorandom guess is optimal, whereby one eliminates known high-probability-of-mine squares from the clickable pool to maximize the probability of the remaining squares being safe. He demonstrated this conditional probability near the end of the video, with the two mines remaining in a bunch of unknown squares.

[@yassinehimadi]

@@kilgour22 not in late game

[@bobczech7774]

​@@yassinehimadi 5050s suck. The times I lose to a 5050 make me mad and gets me vexed with the game.

[@Sideshow-Bob]

@@kilgour22 sorry but no, 79.375 % chance of not being a mine would only be the first click with no mines discovered. By the end of the game the chance of a random click falling into a mine is MUCH higher.

[@cranelord]

Ive been looking for a guide like this. Ive got the basics down but this opened a line of thinking I've never considered. Thanks.

[@matsang2008]

After 8 years, finally you opened my eyes on logic behind the Minecraft, thank You.

[@sharkfiinn]

minecraft....

[@matsang2008]

@@sharkfiinn sorry got it wrong 🤣 i meant MineSweeper 🤣

[@GoodMorning-b2w]

pardon for speaking about something unrelated. but why is it possible that we can say 'the' before minesweeper but not minecraft? idk ,

[@matsang2008]

@@GoodMorning-b2w sorry, I’m not good in English. So I use a, an, the randomly 🥹

[@GoodMorning-b2w]

@@matsang2008 it's ok i'm not a native speaker either

[@xCARNAGEakaRAYRAY]

17 years I've wondered what happened if you won. 17 YEARS!

[@superyeah4ever2]

LOL!

[@zcw123]

30 years here

[@Mlindos]

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@Revelatus]

i coded my own version of minesweeper, it helped me learn how the game works but this video helped me understand a lot of the necessary logic to win in expert

[@fewfoes]

can someone play yours?

[@Random-zt4ig]

Man thanks for this! I've always loved minesweeper but when I tried this expert difficulty I found it really difficult your tips helped me! Thanks

[@dh2778]

There are 5 mines you can count in the last situation, not four. Making the correct educated guess plays a big part in achieving higher win percentages.

[@jimraynor3155]

I checked again and I only see four. Remember, the "areas" that you count must be completely non-overlapping.

[@dh2778]

Jim Raynor You may want to triple check that. Remember, there are two missing around the bottom 3.

[@jimraynor3155]

Ah yeah, you're right, you can count 5. Thanks.

[@irl8796]

@@dh2778 this isn’t true. there has to be 2 there, but it was very possible one could have came from the 4 above and 2 next to it. I get the outcome in hindsight was different, but That would have made only 4 you can for sure count.

[@dh2778]

@@irl8796 You should count again.

[@MrStarTraveler]

IMO something you did but didn't explain well is how educated guesswork works. Or evaluating probabilities based on the known numbers. For example: At 9:06 Let's take cells at row 1 columns 15, 16, 17.(counting from upper left corner) Looking at the know numbers there, we can estimate that there is only one mine among those three cells. Therefore clicking on any one of them gives 75% chance of survival and 25% chance of stepping on a mine. That's a good chance IMO. I would prefer that instead of randomly clicking on a cell I have no idea what's the chance of being safe or not. Also at 9:06 If we look at two pairs of cells; One pair at (rows 1 and 2, column 14) and the other pair at (row 2, columns 14 and 15). Both pairs have one mine among the two cells that consist them. However since both pairs share a cell at row 2, column 14, that might indicate the chance there is a mine in that cell is greater than the change of two mines being in the other two cells not shared by the two pairs. That's especially true if counting the missing mines indicated by known numbers in non-overlapping regions gets most of the mines accounted for. Well if most of the missing mines get accounted for then clicking on in a completely unknown region makes more sense but you get what I mean. :)

[@roeniss]

15, 16, 17 how make 75% of survive? you mean 66%?

[@MrStarTraveler]

@@roeniss It was a bad example. But Yeah it's 66% not 75.

[@conspiracytheorylover]

I learned new tricks 1:29 and 2:40 and others from this video .... and your video is easy to understand thank you very much :D

[@gg123gaming8]

Finally after 19 years i finally know how to play it

[@ldoubleprime1654]

As a 14 year old getting into such a old game i really was struggling with the logic part of this game of how situations would over satisfy others only focusing on patterns and the obvious mines and that would make me trip up this made me understand more situations more clearly so thank you video made years ago

[@powfoot4946]

Im happy im not the youngest person playing this

[@ankitkumarsingh2209]

I really really like your technique.. .. Hey I have been able to solve advance minesweeper first time..Thanks..

[@MorikawaMelodies]

I spent nine hours one day trying to beat expert and then got it within 30 minutes the next day

[@mrhowll4333]

Thank you so much Jim, you really helped me to "up" my minesweeper game :D I guess an old dog can be taught new tricks.

[@tesscrelli783]

10 seconds in: "I assume you're already familiar with minesweeper" YT recommends: "Idgaf about your familiarity with the game in question, watch this"

[@dhiaafid6159]

The first one minutes just explains everything.

[@meetshrimali3319]

RrsrrrsrrrsrrrssrrarrdaaoaAao

[@meetshrimali3319]

Rràaaaaoao#9ao9oAOOAo#¶

[@meetshrimali3319]

KAo9aoaao###9aa

[@meetshrimali3319]

As aauu7ujdaiuuoa

[@meetshrimali3319]

aaaaaaAaaaaAaaaaAAAaaaaAaaaa

[@pinospin9588]

The moment you click randomly and it pop out number 8

[@Zelly_22]

Thank you! I knew I had to guess on the last section I thought I was going crazy because I was guessing 🥴🥴

[@ChangaChet]

Thanks a lot, I was struggling with the contradicting logics, now I know how. Thanks again

[@SmokingSpoon]

Really nice guide! It's even better since it's Jimmy Raynor! i'm happy that I knew pretty much all of these tips/logics on my own from playing too much lol.

[@MLL65]

easy tip is when you see in line 1 and 2..The third square will be a mine because it is the only square that has increased the number

[@skateordiemusic]

First 2 min and ive already learned a good trick: when its guess and counting time, i always start with "if theres a bomb in this cell" and i see you start with "if theres no bomb here" and that way you find the right hipothesis faster than i do. Definitely im gonna try this and time to see the rest of the video! Good job

[@eggy337]

This is exactly what i was looking for

[@wing0ng]

I really like this video. Thanks for the tips!

[@bobczech7774]

4:56 yes in my nf run i counted the mines that i would need to flag and got 98. That meant i could decipher where the mine was. 97 mine count means i would have to take a 50 50. 96 means no 50 50, the non mine was the square that was a mine in 98.

[@TAB-Spec]

definitely sharing for my family and friends... or not I could act like a pro and wow them for forever... THAT sounds FUN!!!

[@KeisariYT]

Wow this helped me alot! I didn't realise I can use basic sudoku techniques for MS too!

[@epikbaconb9780]

Very nice walkthrough

[@sicdav1d0ff]

That's the one small step i needed to become a lot better. Thanks

[@jessicawang6558]

You sound like a math major :D

[@PretzelBS]

Didn’t show anything I didn’t already know. Guess there aren’t any next-level strats that I’m missing

[@marttielvisto3519]

Same I just have to practice a lot

[@RonaiHenrik]

Okay Im glad that I'm not totally stupid, I already knew all of this, figured it out by myself but jesus christ his speed is on a different level. I guess it's all down to practice from now on.

[@MLL65]

i love how you play this game

[@wit_ef8853]

Let's pretend I can do that logic by myself 💀

[@epikbaconb9780]

I'm back thanks for the tips they work very well

[@benoita.725]

Playing at the advanced level, you need to make guess(es) majority of the times, and more often if you customized by adding mines. So you need to make educated guess(es). Yes, leaving a small area unfinished and come back later when you know how many mines are left may be a good strategy. Also you go where the % is better (say 3/4 instead of 1/2 or pure random). It also depends what you want to achieve; % of success or speed. I play for speed so I tend to guess in the first 15-20 seconds. Lastly, a good strategy is to open more than one "workable area" at the beginning, so yes, more guesses ! salutations du Québec...

[@Jonas-yv6lo]

Lol so I guess I'm also an expert, did these "tips" intuitively already, it's just logic really. Just trying to get faster now, cheers fellow expert!

[@CharlieSamSpruce]

Damn you definitely study maths. Could tell in first 30 seconds “trivial” and “contradiction”

[@Amunny]

Yeah people who enjoy playing minesweeper usually also study maths or enjoy math related subjects.

[@OfficialMeep]

I understand, but my brain ain't braining.

[@robertomariani626]

Interesting trick the assumptions that if there's a mine in a specific square, then some other number isn't gonna satisfy its conditions, I never considered that and that meant I had to take too many risks to ever realistically beat expert difficulty, I was however able to do average difficulty without knowing this because having to take risks is much rarer there, will see if I can beat expert with this new trick. Edit: beat the expert thanks to this trick and a lucky game, I only had to go blind a couple times early game, and use an advanced strategy, as indicated here once, always early on, for the rest it was an easy one, but it took me so long, as I wanted to go safe, around 1250 seconds, or 21 mins, that I didn't make it into the records, that has to be max 999 sec! Even so that's my first win at expert in 22 years, will try to do better, haven't won another since then. Eventually was able to do it quick enough to make it into the records, 900 sec, or exactly 15 mins, again a lucky game where I had to rely on luck very little and also only needed to use advanced strategies a handful of times.

[@cygnusx-7440]

Good video! I, like so many other people, play 'PANNICK' minesweeper, full of crazy chances and frequent losses. I've had a couple games under 90 seconds, but I've NEVER taken the time to flag safe spots. And yes, it's hard to commit to a game that gives you 'can't win' scenarios. Many corner trapped "50-50" guess situations...

[@zorac91]

Thank you so much. I've completed it several times but I split cells 50/50 way too much (winrate is very meh). This helped a lot

[@bobczech7774]

After 9.22337203e+18 years, i finally beat expert without flags! (Yes i really did so)

[@anuragdey_]

Thank you for this video 🙏🙏🙏

[@Supersonic]

I didn't think i was gunna learn from this, but my starting assumption was wrong.

[@cyberstalker1713]

Once My Internet Is Shut Dead! I Tried To Timepass By Playing Minesweeper "Now I Am Addicted"

[@skye4591]

so if theres a corner thats an empty space with no number directly horizontal or verrtical to it then ignore that space? in this video i didnt see you recognize these at all

[@ashwanivats348]

Your explanation was really good. People often ignore whats hidden in the boxes. Calculations and all. You still play? Any new patterns? 48*27 (150 bombs), what's your time?

[@nicolasross642]

what to do when 1 mine left and only 2 spots but no logic to follow? no numbers no nothing, just to spots. That happens often

[@gxtr1324]

Very amazing 💯💯💥💥✨✨

[@ThanosBabaji]

It's 2020 and i am watching this Is it ok

[@jan_Travis]

Yes. Minesweeper is best game.

[@peteiiseasy3217]

Yeah 2021 les goo

[@danielargieri9055]

as clear as one can be. thanks!

[@gxbrxxl9626]

In summary: "Let's assume"

[@heynando]

so freaking cool. thanks a lot!

[@asdf4237]

Lets Assume I dont have brain, oh,but i can type meaningful sentence,that means the initial assumption was incorrect, that means i have a brain....

[@UnderscoreZeroLP]

Shut up idiot

[@MI-zt1wv]

philosophy in a nutshell

[@brunogabriel8203]

You're a legend

[@bobdipietro]

Very nice job. Thank you for the instruction.

[@BerettaTV]

Great video!

[@urosrakic6900]

After I figured out how to chord, I can beat Minesweeper on Intermediate. Before that, I was struggling even with Beginner mode. But now, I can beat Minesweeper on Intermediate mode. On expert mode... there will be 95% chance that you have to guess (which is something that I hate). Because of the fact that you have to guess, I can't beat Expert mode. I sometimes lose on Intermediate mode due to that. But, usually, I beat Intermediate mode.

[@7kenjoyer]

I'm glad that you're improving, but I'd love to point out that you made your conclusion way too early. On average, decent players can win 20 games out of 100. Top players can win even more games, which is around 40. The highest numbers are above 50 out of 100, but that needs luck. This number must be even higher, because windows version always gives an opening on the first click, which will increase the win rate a bit So, I'd say you're lacking logic in expert games, and you think you have to guess when it's not the case. I'm not trying to advertise anything, but the best way to learn logic is to play no guessing mode on minesweeper online (website). That mode only generates boards that can be solved with logic, and the last difficulty (evil) includes complex logic. It will definitely make you feel you have to guess, because there's still a lot to learn. That mode has useful hints that actually make you learn, but I don't recommend using them too much. Also, that website has a bunch of guides written by top players on advanced patterns and other things that will be very useful for a player at your level. That website has a chat full of very experienced players that will answer any questions you have. If you don't want to go to any websites, then I recommend staring at the board whenever you think you have to guess. Good luck!

[@urosrakic6900]

@@7kenjoyer I think that these words are so discouraging. I'm trying hard to beat Minesweeper on Expert mode (Hard difficulty), and you're saying that I'm giving conclusion very early and that I'm lacking logic? I'm trying my best to beat that board, and most of the time, Minesweeper forces me to guess. And I hate that. I'm on the verge to stop playing Minesweeper.

[@7kenjoyer]

@@urosrakic6900 Sorry that it turned this way. At least I hope it was obvious I'm trying to help and not make you stop playing minesweeper. You know where to go if you need help (I mentioned in my first comment). Unfortunately you can't learn everything by just playing offline on your own. By lacking logic I meant that you probably don't know some of the patterns (expert has more patterns than intermediate) and then you make a conclusion you have to guess instead of progressing safely. I haven't seen you play though but judging by your conclusion I think that you still have things to learn to increase your win rate. I'm actually involved in its community and I know what players are capable of who studied all of the guides and practiced a lot. Everyone has an equal chance of blasting in the corner or when they encounter a forced 50:50 yet top players can win much more games than me or you for example Also if you dislike guessing this much then you will probably love no guessing mode on that website. Not to mention that site encourages people to play different variety (efficiency, no flags, high difficulty, etc.) with quests events and arenas and you will probably find something that you love more than what you're currently doing in minesweeper. It also has an awesome community. Good luck

[@Mikeandnike5]

Thanks u man......this video was really awesome. thank u again man.

[@Kaitri]

Why am i watching this? Why am i enjoying it

[@Edtuma]

I keep getting rectangles with only 1, like how tf am i supposed to beat this if I have to guess

[@Siberius-]

Super useful! thank you. I wondering if the game could be designed in such a way to never have to make random guesses.. seems randomized, if they just kicked out the guess games and made it like a saved maps thing it would be better.. thousands and thousands of games that actually work.. or games tht people complete get saved to the game and then used.. Edit: I just saw your other comment with a link to a game with no guessing.. suppose it does exist.

[@Evan-gj5si]

I always come down to like 4 spots left with 2 mines and it’s a complete guessing game ecks dee And with my luck I fuck it up 90% of the time.

[@Ahmed-th1li]

I'm sorry but does best time say "103"?? BECAUSE THAT CAN'T BE TRUE, the number isn't clear in my screen, someone comfirm the numer please.

[@nonamemister2643]

lmaoooo, it do be like that tho, 96% of the time, logic and brain games, the last 4%, "Now we play the guessing game"

[@gabeh7655]

how enlightening, jfc I wish I thought of this on my own

[@Idontwantyourcookies]

After learning how to play minesweeper, I found it frustrating to find out you can't win every game.. not even on easy. That's pretty different to other games that I'm used to playing

[@roughryder5]

Show off. Joking, your a legend.

[@AwwesomeVal]

Man. I thought I knew "basics" but i apparently don't. A minute in even pausing I'm not sure why you felt it was safe to click on some of these areas

[@ciclismo1450]

Also helps to look up some patterns

[@qazwsxedcrfvtgbyh480]

man youre amazing tbh

[@spaceangelmewtwo9074]

There's a lot better way of thinking, at least for me, for many of the cases in this video. Instead of thinking about contradictions when trying to locate mines, I always think about it in the following way; where does this number tell me the mine(s) could possibly be, and will that satisfy surrounding numbers? I'll try to list some examples. Pause at 0:26 I am able to come to the conclusion that the mine is where Jim says it is a lot faster by looking at the 1 and thinking that there can only be one mine in the spaces surrounding it. No matter where that mine is, it is also touching the 2, but the 2 needs one more mine. Therefore there must be a mine in the third space not touching the 1 in order for the 2 to be satisfied. Pause at 0:55 You can come to the conclusion instantly that there is no mine where Jim has his flag that he is talking about in this frame because no matter where the second mine for the 2 is, it also satisfies the 1, so there can be no more mines around it. Also, if you look at the bottom left, I can also tell you that the 1 in the bottom left corner will also satisfy that 2 next to it, so the space directly below the 3 is safe. Pause at 1:26 Jim is about to get into the topic of the row of three 2s on the right, but his way of thinking about this situation is a little slow because he is treating all the 2s like "2s." However, you can only think of the 2 in the middle like a "2." The 2s surrounding it can be thought of as "1s" because they already have one mine surrounding them, so you can treat this line of 2s like you would a "1-2-1" line. There is a 3 with a 2 to the left slightly down and to the left of the 222 line. The space directly under the flag to the right of the 2 is safe because the 3 will satisfy that 2. This one is particularly advanced, and makes for a great demonstration of my point. Look at the very lowest 2 on the board in the bottom left, still paused at 1:26. The bottom-left space next to that 2 is safe, and one of the mines next to both of the 3s it is touching are each in the spaces NOT touching that 2. Here is how I know this. Take the 3 above that 2 for example. You can satisfy both it and the 2 by having the mines be to the right and upper-right of that 2, but then it is impossible to satisfy the 3 to the left of the 2 there, and vice versa if you do something similar for the 3 on the left. Therefore, each of those 3s has a mine that is not touching that 2, and then the other mine counts towards that 2. Since both of those mines together satisfy that 2, the bottom-right is safe. One last time before I move on to another topic. Pause at 3:02. Jim's logic is perfectly fine here, but there is an alternative (Both work equally well, just trying to get readers to think a little bit more about what I'm talking about). That 3 above where Jim has his mouse has one mine on it, and the two others have to satisfy that 2, making the bottom-right on that 2 safe. One more thing I want to mention. If this was on the board, I wasn't paying attention, but I don't think I ever saw this configuration. If you ever encounter a line of mines in the order of "1-2-2-1," the mines are directly above, below, or to the sides of the 2s, depending on how the line is configured. If we look at the text as being on the bottom of our clear spaces for example, they would be below. We know this because the 2s satisfy the ones no matter how they are configured, so we can take, say, the 1 on the left and click the space(s) not touching the 2. There is a mine to the bottom-right of that 2 so that it is satisfied, and that mine is touching the 1 on the right, satisfying it. Then you satisfy the 2 on the right with the space under the 2 on the left, satisfying them both and the 1 on the left. This works every time, so you don't always need to think about all this. Think of my reasoning like you would a mathematical proof. You can also prove that "1-2-1" always works, but I'll leave that for the dear reader to think about. Lastly, at 9:28, when Jim said that his guess wasn't helping, he lied. It helped a lot. Before he made his guess, there were 2 mines unaccounted for, but after he made his guess, I can count 9 of the mines, which helps to make a very well educated guess for our next one. Let's start with the 3 he just revealed. It has a mine remaining, so that's 1 mine. The uppermost 3 unaccounted for has 2 mines left, so that's 3 mines. That 3 to the left has one mine remaining. 4 mines. Down at the bottom, that lowest 1 is unaccounted for. 5 mines. The 3 above has one mine remaining. 6 mines. The lowest 3 has two mines left. 8 mines. Then, that leftmost 3 remaining has one mine left. That makes 9 mines. The safest guess that we know will reveal the most information that could be helpful is to look at that last 3 I mentioned. There is another 3 to the bottom-right of it. Click the space to the bottom-right of that 3. There is still a chance that the one remaining mine is there, but since that space was not counted among the spaces that we know have mines, and there are 10 uncertain spaces in total, there is not a 1-in-2 chance a mine is there, but a 1-in-10 chance. If there is no mine there, we can open up the bottom part of the board quite a bit. Unfortunately, there is no way to safely open up the upper part of the board because we counted every space. I would say click the space to the left of the uppermost 3 that Jim just revealed, because that space has a 1-in-4 chance due to the presence of the nearby 4, making the bottom-left a 3-in-4 chance of containing the mine as that would satisfy them both. When in these types of situations, it is best to consider the spaces that satisfy multiple numbers to be the danger zone. Jim gets away with clicking this space, and my guess would have been wrong, but we didn't know that until he clicked. He happened to get lucky with a 25% chance gamble and I was unlucky with my 75%. Such is the way of probability sometimes. Anything can happen, and all you can do is increase your chance of being right.

[@joeknapton3582]

Nicely done, a good amount of detail but not SO much that it drags. I didn't really necessarily learn anything here, but it was fun to see someone else try to explain the same methods I use personally.

[@wwplaymc1207]

thanks for helping

[@Deefunx]

Awesome, thank you.

[@mohamad.manla.98]

I watched the video hoping that you would find a trick for the “luck” issue but actually I know all that 😂💔

[@youz123]

nice guide

[@coffeeecatsss]

bro dota 2 have minigame like minesweeper, now i gotta learn how to play it lol

[@arthurleonard8390]

what version of minesweeper does he play

[@henrywolbeck793]

It opens a new window after the game ending

[@fathiadnan1468]

My brain is bleeding

[@davidhill8565]

Dating in this day and age is like playing Minesweeper. Men are like the players. Women are like the cells on the Minesweeper board. The mines are either women who divorce and take men to the cleaners or walking one-way tickets to prison. The numbered cells are like controlling or abusive women. The blank cells are like traditional women or wife material. If a man is taken to the cleaners or is sent to jail over a woman, that’s like a game over in Minesweeper. A man being a match made in Heaven with a woman is liking winning the game of Minesweeper.

[@christopherpang200]

why do i not see your name in the world record list

[@jsy0160]

I was wondering how you were able to clear multiple cells at ~3:45 with just one click?

[@jimraynor3155]

It's done by pressing both mouse buttons together. You first have to mark the exact number of mines indicated on the cell.

[@arijanj]

i dont get it can you explain a little bit better please

[@NotAmour]

Try clicking on the left and right mouse buttons at the same time.

[@TypeRob]

Were you able to figure this out? I'm a little confused too in the technique

[@narayandas4894]

Thats amazing

[@25yo21]

good video

[@xcv2315]

very nice video thx man

[@Nonexistility]

Wait it was based on luck all along?!

[@Asterics.]

it's annoying when you start with only 1 cell in corner

[@enymus3081]

You didnt looked at the 4, 2 and 3, therefore you forgot that you could have clicked on one field that is 100% clear for mines!

[@DeluxeWarPlaya]

Big job

[@xekrov]

It's crazy to me how fast people can deduce where they can & can't click. I find myself slowly doing circles around numbers and counting squares. I think I'm too stupid for this game lmfao

[@koutaibaalabd9602]

i got to this point a long time ago, obviously by playing it a lot. but it annoys me when i have to try my luck which is stupid. i saw a record of 33 seconds for the expert level and it kills me that i don't know how that guy did it

[@jimraynor3155]

There's a Minesweeper clone on this site called "Mines": www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/puzzles/ You can play in-browser or download a desktop version. This version eliminates the luck aspect!

[@theorange1729]

6:55 Or you can move on by putting a flag above that 4 ;) but seriously though, this video is awesome, just helpful for someone like me, thanks a lot