Turing Machine: Improve Your Game

[@ItsGettingTooWarm]

the production value of this video is off the charts

[@qwerty2qwerto]

This video is amazing and I don't even own this game. Well done

[@hxjdjdn6236]

I've watched this video numerous times. It is just amazing. I love learning this game. When you feel "I got this" ...nope I have more to learn 😂

[@Venturello]

The depth in this video is crazy, bravo!! 👏👏 I don’t own the game, play it on bga, this besides super well recorded and edited is very insightful. Thanks!

[@richcharters5885]

This is an incredible video.....such a pleasure to watch. I learned so much........I say 'learned' but even though when you say/show it in the video, it makes complete sense, when I try to do it, its a different story entirely! :). It brought a smile to my face to hear you say that your laziness had been vindicated......at least in that one example.....and that the rest of your life is not up for discussion. I thought: I feel the exact same way!! Also, thanks for the extremely helpful visual aids.....if you just tried to talk through this without showing the check marks, Xs, etc.... it would be complete chaos. The quality of your visual aids REALLY helped. Thanks for posting.

[@adventuresincreativesoftwa6283]

Thanks for the feedback! I'm very glad it was helpful.

[@tonybates6551]

I played this game a bit on BGA and was a little underwhelmed (because I didn't understand the ramifications of the full ruleset.) Now that I see the possibilities that extend from your various principles, I find myself way more interested in digging in. Thank you for making this!

[@MellorineKnight]

I had this game for a week from a rental store. I played about 10 games with it, with a final one on standard nightmare difficulity. I managed to solve it, without any queationing! It felt amazing! And I thought that was it. But now after watching this video, I just have to play this game again. This video was a great breakdown of how it feels to play this game. Thanks!

[@jonkirk2118]

This was absolutely fantastic. Extremely useful and very enjoyable to watch. Many thanks!

[@AurianeGabaut-no2pm]

Excellent video ! Watch it when I discovered the game and I'm rewatching it now to improve my game !

[@feekygucker2678]

Putting the video down quietly to go try nightmare mode... Quality production my dude 👍.

[@winterzee]

Wonderful video, thanks. I'll follow your direction and come back later for the nightmare mode chapter.

[@adventuresincreativesoftwa6283]

Thanks for the feedback, and good luck tackling Nightmare mode!

[@mikeriley2766]

Thanks for a great video! Today for the first time I waded into the depths of nightmare mode, and thanks to your video, I actually survived my first contact with nightmare mode!

[@adventuresincreativesoftwa6283]

Thanks for the comment, and good on you for tackling Nightmare mode - I get the impression that many players prefer not to dive that deep.

[@mikeriley2766]

@@adventuresincreativesoftwa6283 It was your video that gave me the courage to try nightmare mode. I actually find it to be the most enjoyable mode of the game! That mode is pretty daunting if you really do not understand how to tackle it, your video helped with that a whole lot!

[@racking570]

I loved this video. I’m very excited to try expert mode now and possibly even nightmare mode in the future

[@JorWat25]

27:18 Maybe it's less fun for you, but I love trying to deduce as much as possible. I've literally done exactly what you said (reduced the first problem to one test), and found the experience like solving a sudoku or similar logic puzzle. That said, yes, it can take a lot of time and effort to do that, and I'm not sure I'd do it to quite that level every time.

[@adventuresincreativesoftwa6283]

Yeah, I agree - it can be a lot of fun, especially when you first discover just how far you can take it. I didn't mean to disparage deep deductions, but I didn't want viewers to think that they're somehow 'missing out' on anything. In some cases, I think it can run counter to the spirit of the game (e.g. by removing the need to devise a proposal), but that's also just an opinion. I love the way TM can accommodate so many different styles of play!

[@aspiringloser]

7 minutes in and I already know this is worth well more than my 1 possible like.

[@riderbrito5638]

Probably the most didactic and helpful video I've watched so far on KZbin. Thank you so much for putting that much effort into explaining the game, with such great visual elements to make the explanation easier to understand. This makes anyone wanna give Turing Machine a try, for sure 👏👏👏

[@kindredspiritm]

This is incredible and the accent is a bonus!

[@niraofgallifrey315]

I do a lot of other logic puzzles, so my instinct is to think about the game from the perspective of there is 1 solution rather than solving each verifier - I definitely didn't understand the superfluous verifier principle before this so thank you!! I personally hate the number grid they give you because solutions come in full 3 digit codes - you can't really solve for individual digits. I've taken to making grids that show all 125 possible solutions and eliminating them as I go and starting with the unique solution principle - I can sometimes cut the options down to like 20 solutions. I also really love verifiers eliminating possible solutions with just their options - ie if there's a biggest number, then any codes where the biggest number is repeated ie 535, 441, must be wrong

[@adventuresincreativesoftwa6283]

An interesting approach - thanks for sharing! I've seen other KZbin videos which list at least *some* of the 125 possible permutations.

[@ВолодимирКоробка-п5р]

The video is awesome. I have tried easy mode on bga and I thought there is no depth if until classic hard it feels quite easy. But only with your video i completely understood the rules and the depth of logic behind finding solution. I will need to rewatch this video few times to understand it

[@davidkoci8446]

Thank you, man! Absolutely amazing video!

[@rafakruczek5622]

1:30 Re spolier-free... If you pick up verification card this way you can spoil the game for yourself in solo(or cheat in multi) For some questions you can deduce answer from numer relative number of X and V visible. For example if question is "is triangle < ,>,= 3" and there is small number (25/125=20%) of V , answer is "="...

[@maximelabelle1903]

I'm trying to make more initial deductions from the basic setup shown in the video. We know the code has no order and that blue is not equal to three. Focusing on card D, let's assume blue is greater than the other two digits. If we list all the codes, we find none where blue can be less than three. Therefore, we would not have to query card A because we would know blue to be definitely greater than 3. Obviously knowing the solution, why is this not a valid reasoning. Why doesn't that make card A superfluous in this case.

[@Ilportavoce]

one of the best videos ive ever seen

[@Portponky]

the bad habit I had to unlearn is selecting queries in advance and then barrelling through them without pausing to absorb each individual verifier's info, because sometimes that makes a planned query obsolete

[@davidwilson8183]

Love this game, but my son beats me every time! Maybe I shouldn’t have shared this video with him! 😂. AMAZING … THANK YOU!

[@gabrielfoong]

THIS VIDEO ROCKS, thanks for making this you made the game so much more present in my life🎉

[@adventuresincreativesoftwa6283]

Thanks, glad to hear you're enjoying the game.

[@MisterVercetti]

To clarify on your example at 13:48 - No, the first criterion on A doesn't render C superfluous. _However,_ the inverse _is_ true: the 2nd and 3rd criteria for C _do_ render A superfluous (if yellow or purple were smallest, then blue couldn't be 1, so by default it would have to be greater than 1), so you can eliminate those two and determine that blue is the smallest number by default.

[@adventuresincreativesoftwa6283]

Yes, that's absolutely right, thanks for pointing it out. There are several other deductions which also get 'left on the table', throughout the video.

[@leeprice133]

This one does confuse me a bit. Given that one of the conditions on each criteria card *must* be true (so no verifier could give an X on all conditions), it seems to me that it's the case that the lowest number in the correct answer must be strictly smaller than the other two based on the presence of C. A little confused as to why 'blue = 1' *wouldn't* necessarily render C superfluous.

[@Kubboz]

That's precisely because it provides this "lowest number must be strictly smaller than the other two" information by its mere presence. One could imagine the presence of this card being required to, for example, determine which of "112" and "132" are correct, no?

[@ryanhomcy7759]

This helped me so much! Just beat the machine by 4 questions on Hard! Curious to try Extreme mode now...

[@adventuresincreativesoftwa6283]

Nice one! :-)

[@middleclassjoe]

Fantastic video. And yes, my brain did turn to custard.

[@RowRowFightThePowaa]

Amazing video thank you. What i dont get is what is the point of the propositions "three X" (like three 3s) ? It seems like they are always superfluous ? Is it just a "noob trap" ?

[@adventuresincreativesoftwa6283]

You're right that it's always superfluous, but I don't think it's malicious. :-) On the basic cards, I think it helps to keep the cards clear and easy to understand. And on the advanced cards (>25) they do omit such criteria.

[@markchivers147]

At around 27:20 you stated that we can solve the puzzle previously worked through with no tests. My son and I have spent a great evening trying to solve and got to 5 distinct possibilities but cant see the jump to the solution without a test. (We have tests A, D and F solved and have C as a 50/50 with either zero or one 3s, and then we have identified all paths from there that create only one solution). If you had the energy to do a video explaining the deductions made to solve without testing I would be an eager viewer. Also, brilliant video thanks a stack, I went from playing the game and thinking 'meh' to being a little obsessed.

[@adventuresincreativesoftwa6283]

Thanks for the feedback. If you'd like to see some examples of solving games with zero queries, check out kzbin.info/www/bejne/nWG3pq2QrNhloq8 As you say, I think a lot of people take a 'first look' at Turing Machine, and mistakenly think there's not much there. Which is one of the reasons I made this video... glad you found it interesting! 🙂

[@maximelabelle1903]

What a great video! There is one thing I do not understand related to non-mutually exclusive advanced cards. At 35:00, after having eliminated all but one criterion from card B, you infer that Yellow MUST indeed be equal to 4 without making a query. Isn’t it possible to find a situation where all the criteria from a card are false? Like, giving you "Yellow is not equal to 4" still is a useful bit of information. What I’m trying to ask is how come the one remaining criteria in an advanced card must be true ? Is there a rule I missed ?

[@adventuresincreativesoftwa6283]

Thanks for the feedback. Yeah, that's just a rule of the game. I considered covering the rules at the start, but decided the video was quite long enough!

[@calboy2]

Fantastic video….advanced mode had me so confused and you explained it well

[@Chipotle_Rice]

In the first and last of the basic deduction examples, can't you eliminate square being the smallest/biggest (from verifiers 14/15) since that would make verifier 22 superfluous? If square was the smallest or biggest, the numbers could not be in ascending or descending order, right?

[@adventuresincreativesoftwa6283]

Yes, you're absolutely right - well spotted. (At 11:47 and 18:47).

[@Chipotle_Rice]

@@adventuresincreativesoftwa6283 thanks for the confirmation! And thanks for this fantastic video!

[@jpay]

At 22:20, I'm unclear why we can confirm the first criterion (on card 15 / verifier D) is *definitely* *true.* We know is blue is 5; so the second and third criteria (that purple or yellow are largest) can definitely be eliminated. But at this point, I don't see how we can eliminate the possibility of a code 555 - which would make the first criterion (blue is largest) *false.* It seems to me that querying the first criterion could still provide new information; namely whether yellow and purple are definitely less than 5. Likely I've missed something. (Same idea as why we *cannot* eliminate blue = 1 at 13:48) Edit: perhaps this is my misunderstanding of the rules - must exactly one (i.e. more than none) criterium on each verifier card be true?

[@adventuresincreativesoftwa6283]

Yep, you got it. It's just a rule of the game.

[@jpay]

​@@adventuresincreativesoftwa6283 Thanks! P.S. amazing video that really elegantly scratches the "optimize-the-heck-out-of-something strategy" itch. Much appreciated and you're awesome.

[@adventuresincreativesoftwa6283]

​@@jpay Thanks, I'm glad it was helpful!

[@tpa3437]

Very nice video! Do you have a proposed progression to practice those initial deduction? Is it better to play at 6 verifiers to practice that?

[@adventuresincreativesoftwa6283]

I think that when it comes to choosing the number of verifiers, there's no wrong answer. Personally, I like to mix it up, for variety.

[@telemakotv]

Amazing video, congratulations 👏👏👏

[@Isthar13]

Thank you for the explanation! I'm struggling to differenciate superflluous and deductible cards... On minute 13, card F is solved without querying because if order where ascending then card C would be superfluous. But I don't think so, as knowing the order is ascending implies yellow < purple, but card C allows yellow and purple to be equals. Is not the same that happens with the card A and C?

[@adventuresincreativesoftwa6283]

Perhaps a better way to look at it is like this: a card is superfluous if it offers no new information. I hope this helps to make that example a bit clearer. Good luck!

[@fabiengridel]

Impressiv !

[@adventuresincreativesoftwa6283]

Thanks! And congrats to you and Yoann, on such great game design!

[@LeScorpionmasque]

Agreed!

[@rajbhangu9029]

14:21 you are saying we can't cross out Blue = 1 because Card C could still tell us that yellow and purple could be larger than blue? I don't get that one. Why isn't Card C superfluous? Great video by the way! Learned so much

[@adventuresincreativesoftwa6283]

Yes, you description seems correct to me. Verifier C provides 'new' information, that no other Verifier provides. So it's not superfluous. Hope this helps.

[@Phoenix3573]

Late reply, but basically the existence of Card C itself eliminates the possibility of more than one digit being 1, so it's not superfluous. Because Card A's Blue=1 could still mean that Yellow and Purple digits could be 1, but Card C tells you that is not possible, so that is new information that we wouldn't have received had Card C not been there.

[@romanyasiura159]

I cannot ubderstand why verifyier have 4 number marks? We always positioning perfocard coresponsing to circle, triangle and squere, with that it is enough to have one number mark to specify verificatir. So why it marked with 4 numbers? Is there reason for that or they redundant?

[@jan.basanes]

Can someone pls explain the deduction made at 20:14 ? Here's what I understand about Verifier F ... I understand that the criterion for an ascending code does not allow for duplicate numbers (game does not consider 112 nor 899 ascending). Similarly a descending code does not allow for duplicate numbers (game does not consider 433 nor 332 descending). Now ... Would the No Order criterion allow for duplicate numbers? In my current understanding, I think that it would allow for duplicate numbers, but pls correct me if I am wrong. Thanks for any and all help! 😬😬🙏🏾🙏🏾

[@Portponky]

No Order allows duplicate numbers, the deduction is that Two Threes criteria forces the No Order criteria, making the card superfluous. Therefore it can't be Two Threes.

[@nshaw1299]

I have to say I wasn't able to grasp the advanced cards from this video, which is what I hoped (and is a major flaw of the publishers not having them explained in the instructions with the game). You start by explaining the difference of them not being 'mutually exclusive', which is great, but then, you jump to deduction without testing cards, which just throws it off for me and I'm sure other viewers. What I wanted to know is quite simply this - when I test example code XYZ with an example advanced verifer - what do I know if the result is true/false? and then show other examples of code and true/false answers and answer the same question.... you see, that's the difference for many people. We understand the basic cards like that (and you said it yourself wjen explaining the mutually exclusive part - if I test code that matches condition X, and got false, then the real code must comply with one of the other conditions). I need a parallel to that statement with advanced cards. Tested X, got false, what do I know?

[@adventuresincreativesoftwa6283]

Thanks for the feedback, sorry the video wasn't helpful. At 43:25, I mention what you can conclude from a tick or a cross. And that applies to both basic and advanced cards. Perhaps it will help. The other advice I'll offer is that the more you play, the more it starts to make sense. It may take dozens of games just to get comfortable with basic cards, let alone advanced ones. Good luck!

[@nshaw1299]

@@adventuresincreativesoftwa6283 You're right! Those 15 seconds just explained the advanced cards for me. Really, there should be a video saying basically that and only that called 'Turing machine: advanced verifiers explained'. Thanks!!! It's absolutely bonkers the printed rules don't say that exact simple sentence in large bold letters.

[@nshaw1299]

​@@adventuresincreativesoftwa6283 Trying to understand something. the code to guess was 445. I tested 125 using card #32 whose criteria is 'a specific color is greater than 3' and basically has 3 criteria for 'greater than 3' for each digit. I got an X - so I crosses the criteria that was fulfilled by my guess. The last digit was greater than 3 so i crossed it. I wrote to myself that the last digit is less than or equal 3. But obvsiously that is not true. Where is my logic failure?

[@leeprice133]

@@nshaw1299 I'll try to explain. The verifier only 'knows' about one of the listed criteria. It's basically saying 'I *know* that the *one* digit I am checking for is >3' but it knows nothing about the other digits. In your example, you propose the code 125 and get an X. This does *not* imply that the third digit is not >3, it implies that the verifier isn't *checking* for the third digit being greater than 3, and is testing one of the other digits instead. You can validly eliminate that criterion, but you can't make numerical eliminations because the criteria aren't mutually exclusive. For example, say it 'knows' that the *first* digit is >3, then it will give you a tick for *any* proposal where the first digit is >3, regardless of the other digits (because the verifier just doesn't 'see' those digits). 455 and 411 would both give you a tick in that case, while 255 and 211 would both give you an X. Getting an X on 255 would actually tell you *for certain* that the verifier is checking the first digit, because if it was checking the second or third, you'd get a tick.

[@ventosa09]

I’ve never seen a video done as well as this!

[@hxjdjdn6236]

We need more examples for hard and higher difficulties 😢

[@alumarunt]

In tier 4 we tested D by the sum of 8 and got a false. So we concluded that the answer was not a multiple of 4. But then we do in fact get an answer adding to 12 which is a multiple of 4... So were we really testing a multiple of 4 or were we just testing one specific multiple of 4? Confused about this one

[@adventuresincreativesoftwa6283]

Watch all of Hard Difficulty (28:12), keeping in mind that the card you mentioned is an Advanced criteria card. Good luck!

[@DIMITSARASA]

Can you please explain why in nightmare mode's example you deleted from the beginning the fact that there are no 2 3s, i understand for the 3 3s but for the 2 i don't get it, couldn't the code be let's say 353 (before checking the rest of criteria of course)

[@jonkirk2118]

If that second card was telling you that there were "two 3s", then the last card would not add any new information for this puzzle since you'd already know there was "no order" if there were "two 3s". Each card must be solved. If a card is rendered superfluous, this breaks the game rules since each criterion you discover on a card must tell you something you wouldn't otherwise know. Hence, that second card cannot be telling you that there are "two 3s". It's either telling you that there is "one 3" or "zero 3s". Once you have the single criterion from each card, there will only be one solution that fits all of them.

[@KerloTech]

In your superfluous example where triangle =1, wouldn't that make card 19 superfluous? So we could cross out triangle =1 right?

[@adventuresincreativesoftwa6283]

If you're referring to 13:48, then no, we can't eliminate triangle =1, as it wouldn't make Verifier E (card 19) superfluous. (We can be sure of this, because in that particular game, triangle = 1 turns out to be true). But you're right that those two cards are related. For example, you could eliminate the third criterion from card 19, because - if true - it would make Verifier A superfluous.

[@KerloTech]

@@adventuresincreativesoftwa6283 thanks for replying! I think I'm going to need to spend more time with the game to really understand superfluous criteria.

[@kristanliza9700]

@@adventuresincreativesoftwa6283 14:41 "Card 19 would still provide new information, namely that yellow and purple are definitely greater than 1" Are you saying Yellow or Purple can still be 1, even if blue is 1?

[@airdam43]

How are the verification cards sorted? I find they can't be sorted numerically due to the colours or an i missing something?

[@tpa3437]

Juste a tip for multiplayer, for us it's not really fun as a run as it prevents all the other players from solving the problem themself. When I teach the game everyone goes at their own pace and after we compare

[@adventuresincreativesoftwa6283]

Yeah, I agree - halting the game as soon as one player finds the solution would be horrible. We always let people finish, and I assume most groups do the same.

[@jtfike]

I don't understand how "Yellow is even" and "Yellow is odd" are both crossed out criteria for the last evaluator in extreme mode. Yellow is even. It is a 4. So how is it not criteria for evaluation? This is the part of the game that makes no sense to me. I think I understand what you are trying to say. Of course yellow is even. That evaluator is not telling us anything new and that is the reason "yellow is even" was eliminated. But gosh darn it, that is such a strange way to evaluate a problem.

[@adventuresincreativesoftwa6283]

Yeah, your description is spot on. Note that the 'Superfluous Verifier Principle' is not based on logic: it's just the way the designers chose to create the game. It's actually my favourite design feature in the entire game, because without it, there'd be fewer opportunities for logical deduction.

[@leeprice133]

In extreme mode, the two criteria cards for each verifier are actually one large criteria card. The verifier only knows about one of its associated criteria, and it isn't actually checking the parity of the yellow digit - it's checking specifically for zero 3s and nothing else. The fact that yellow is even in the solution isn't relevant. Any proposed code that contains a 3 will give you an X when tested against that verifier, whether yellow is even or odd.

[@sharonmazor9531]

I'm trying to get this game with no success. Please improve the production and the availability through amazon and local stores

[@adventuresincreativesoftwa6283]

Yeah, I found it pretty tricky to get hold of, too. It's totally worth the effort, though. Just to be clear, I have no affiliation with the publisher. I'm just some annoying KZbinr who got a bit carried away analyzing the game. :-)

[@LeScorpionmasque]

Physical and online stores should have inventory again in late April :)

[@sharonmazor9531]

@@LeScorpionmasqueGreat news! Thanks for updating!

[@andreabrs0931]

@@sharonmazor9531 I'm in France, and I received the game yesterday. I've bought it in December in pre-order ... so ... be patient loool