how did this opponent won with 0 verififier?

[batlie]

How is it possible for an opponent to win a game in one turn with 0 verifier needed? If it is not a bot I don't get it...

Game is Turing Machine #460144697 but all games of this opponent in turing machine has the same result... always find the result, never uses any verifier.

[poptasticboy]

This question gets asked a lot.

You are probably unaware of how to apply the 2 most important rules:
1) No verifier can be redundant.
2) There must be a unique solution.

Using these 2 rules you can eliminate certain criteria from the cards, sometimes meaning that you do not need to ask a question to a particular verifier. In some cases, including this puzzle, you can actually eliminate all but one option on all 6 criteria cards, solving the puzzle without asking any questions at all.

To give a specific example from this puzzle, if the criteria cards "Blue compared to Purple" and "Which colour is smallest" are both in the same puzzle, you automatically know that Yellow must be smallest. This is because, if either of the other 2 colours were smallest, it would also tell you the answer to the other criteria card; that card would be redundant. This is not possible in a valid puzzle.

I'm not going to go through the whole process for that puzzle here, but it's a relatively easy one to solve in 0 questions, if you use these techniques.

[batlie]

Thanks for your answer!

[Rouie_a]

The real answer is - they cheat!
They go to this site and just search for the solution
https://turingmachine.info/

[poptasticboy]

The real answer is - they cheat!
They go to this site and just search for the solution
https://turingmachine.info/

1. That isn't a foolproof way to get an answer. Particular sets of criteria cards might have only 1 possible solution, but other sets might have numerous possible solutions.

2. If a puzzle *can* be solved in 0 (or just a few) questions then a good player *should* be finding the solution in minimal questions (in turn-based games, at least). You can't use it as evidence of cheating when those are the results that any good player *should* be achieving.

Try *asking* a player to talk you through their deductions, showing how they reached their solution, rather than assuming cheating. Presumably, if they were cheating then they would struggle to do so.

[ollyfish2002]

The player is probably using a solver like https://github.com/ThomasdenH/turing-machine-ai

[Rouie_a]

The real answer is - they cheat!
They go to this site and just search for the solution
https://turingmachine.info/

1. That isn't a foolproof way to get an answer. Particular sets of criteria cards might have only 1 possible solution, but other sets might have numerous possible solutions.

2. If a puzzle *can* be solved in 0 (or just a few) questions then a good player *should* be finding the solution in minimal questions (in turn-based games, at least). You can't use it as evidence of cheating when those are the results that any good player *should* be achieving.

Try *asking* a player to talk you through their deductions, showing how they reached their solution, rather than assuming cheating. Presumably, if they were cheating then they would struggle to do so.

I did ask - and they ignored me or just stated that it is difficult to explain.

I know when a single solution exists through deduction - but in several cases in which at least 1 question should be asked to find the solution, they found it without any questions.

[Jellby]

It's too easy to cheat, either using a solver or looking a the page's source code.

[JohnnyCyclops]

I did ask - and they ignored me or just stated that it is difficult to explain.

I know when a single solution exists through deduction - but in several cases in which at least 1 question should be asked to find the solution, they found it without any questions.

I lost a game to a 500+ ELO player when they used a single verifier on a Classic/Easy/4 game. I asked them how and they were polite/gracious enough to stick around and explain it in the text chat. The explanation took longer than the game! What they said made sense.

I strongly urge anyone concerned about continually losing to 500+ ELO players who consistently win through only 0/1/2 guesses that they dial-back the level of opponents they wish to meet and they create their own tables to restrict who they play. I restrict to play only up to good players - I now find players around my own ability level who DO take 3-6 guesses and sometimes I win and sometimes I don't. You would need a premium account to create tables, I believe.

That advice is true for ANY game if you find yourself outgunned by a phalanx of total experts.

I think for any of the super-strong Turning Machine players, they'll do themselves a service by coming to the forum from time-to-time and helping explain how others can play the game better, or sticking around after an easy win to explain to the other player(s) how they did it (if asked). Else this game will simply wither because noobies will be put off by the lopsided nature of the wins.

[Romain672]

I did ask - and they ignored me or just stated that it is difficult to explain.

I know when a single solution exists through deduction - but in several cases in which at least 1 question should be asked to find the solution, they found it without any questions.

Did you know that because you used a solver yourself.
If not, it's just highly likely you did a mistake somewhere, in many games I'm surprised by a false or a missing deduction i (could) made.

If it's people under 500 elo or one single game of a profile, it could be a mistake. I won some game with less than the minimum with luck.

But feel free to share those games on the forum instead of just adding more fuel to conspiracy theories. If you do, I will completely change my mind.
But atm, too many players complain wrongly about that because they don't understand the deductions.

(not saying nobody cheat, but that most claims with a reason are wrong)