Puzzle

Abstract

To provide a puzzle having difficulty different from that of an existing jigsaw puzzle in the puzzle for composing the entire shape of a set presented as a task in advance without excess or deficiency by lining up multiple small pieces two-dimensionally.SOLUTION: Each small piece is in a substantially polygonal shape and does not have one-to-one irregularities for fitting. Any optional two sets in the small pieces are not congruent, but one of portion of an interior angle and a side length is a common value at least in one portion of the optional two sets. Even if any two adjacent small pieces are focused in a correct arrangement, there are no places where one side matches or is shared with another side without any excess and deficiency. By combining these characteristics, multiple small piece candidates that can be disposed in a certain undecided vacant lot can exist, and the number of candidate combinations of the arrangement of small pieces increases exponentially when viewing the entire board surface. A puzzle having difficulty different from an existing jigsaw puzzle can be provided, where a correct solution is searched from among a number of arrangement combination candidates in a place where there is no one-to-one direct matching of small pieces.SELECTED DRAWING: Figure 1

Description

[Technical Field]

[0001] The present invention relates to a puzzle, and more specifically to a puzzle in which a plurality of small pieces can be arranged adjacently in two dimensions to form just the right amount of a predetermined overall set shape. [Background technology]

[0002] Generally, what is called a puzzle has clear rules for operations and constraints, and it is easy to determine whether the correct solution has been reached, but it is difficult and requires some ingenuity and effort to reach the correct solution.

[0003] Among puzzles, puzzles in which small pieces are arranged adjacently in two dimensions include jigsaw puzzles, silhouette puzzles, arrangement puzzles, etc. Although it is difficult to say that there is a unified terminology for these names in prior patent documents, etc., this specification will use these names for convenience, referring to examples of prior art documents.

[0004] For example, Patent Documents 1 and 2 below disclose examples of jigsaw puzzles. The main factors that make a puzzle difficult are the large number of small pieces and the similarity of the shapes of the pieces. To lower the difficulty for children, measures can be taken such as reducing the number of small pieces, reducing the similarity of the shapes of the pieces, and making the concave and convex shapes for fitting the pieces together easily identifiable. The shapes of the small pieces may have concaves and convexes that can only fit together in specific combinations, and these concaves and convexes can also be clues for finding the correct arrangement of the pieces.

[0005] In addition, some commercially available jigsaw puzzles have large designs, such as famous paintings or landscape photographs, cut into many small pieces. While the designs can sometimes provide clues for arranging the pieces, the difficulty can be increased by printing designs on both sides or by using large, detailed, and monotonous designs, such as a sandy beach or a starry sky.

[0006] On the other hand, for example, Patent Document 3 below proposes a plain jigsaw puzzle. The document explains that the puzzle is designed to allow the purchaser to freely draw pictures, but makes little mention of the difficulty level. However, if the cutting pattern is the same, puzzles without pictures are generally more difficult than puzzles with pictures, and in fact, plain jigsaw puzzles that do not allow the purchaser to freely draw pictures are commercially available as "highly difficult puzzles because they are plain."

[0007] In recent years, commercially available jigsaw puzzles that are advertised as being highly difficult have had problems with pieces that are so small that it is difficult to visually distinguish between the pieces and determine whether they fit together properly. This has led to a demand for new methods for adjusting the difficulty of jigsaw puzzles, i.e., the provision of new types of difficulty.

[0008] Furthermore, Patent Document 4 below discloses an example of a silhouette puzzle. The difficulty lies in the high degree of freedom in the shape of the pieces themselves, with no orientation or adjacency constraints, and the possibility of multiple combinations that partially satisfy the silhouette. When creating the silhouette shape to be solved, i.e., the puzzle problem, it is common to use shapes that have some meaning, such as concrete objects like animals, letters, or numbers. This naturally places a limit on the number of puzzle problems that can be created with a single group of pieces. While the monotony of a single color can be a drawback, using multiple colors requires a shape design that makes use of the colors. On the other hand, increasing the number of pieces to create various silhouettes leads to a large number of solutions for the arrangement of pieces to realize the silhouette, which may diminish the interest of the puzzle. A growing number of silhouette puzzles are being proposed that incorporate innovative piece shapes and numbers.

[0009] Furthermore, Patent Document 5 below discloses an example of a placement puzzle. The shapes of the pieces are easily distinguishable from one another, and it may be possible to visually determine at a relatively early stage which pieces fit into an empty lot where no pieces have yet been placed. There is also a patent document that claims that by devising the shapes of the pieces, it is possible to form a wide variety of silhouettes.

[0010] Patent Documents 6 and 7 listed below can also be considered types of arrangement puzzles. The shapes of the pieces follow clear rules and are simple figures, so there may be many pieces that fit into vacant lots where pieces have not yet been placed. However, by coloring or marking the pieces, arrangement constraints similar to the interlocking projections and recesses in a jigsaw puzzle are realized. Because the pieces are colored or marked, it is difficult to cut a large picture into small pieces to make a puzzle. [Prior art documents] [Patent documents]

[0011] [Patent Document 1] Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 09-299610 [Patent Document 2] Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 08-323038 [Patent Document 3] Publication No. 51-080284 [Patent Document 4] Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. 2016-179175 [Patent Document 5] Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. 2015-000178 [Patent Document 6] Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. 2016-019599 [Patent Document 7] Utility Model Registration No. 3059285 Summary of the Invention [Problem to be solved by the invention]

[0012] In view of the above-mentioned prior art documents and the problems they pose, the present invention provides a puzzle that has an appearance similar to a jigsaw puzzle but is different in difficulty from conventional jigsaw puzzles. The difficulties of conventional jigsaw puzzles refer to the difficulty of finding one-to-one matches between the pieces due to the large number of pieces, the difficulty of handling the pieces with fingers because they are too small, the difficulty of determining whether one-to-one matches are correct because the size of the pieces themselves and the unevenness and length of the pieces' sides are too small, and the difficulty of using the continuity of the patterns as hints because the patterns are detailed and monotonous, even though they are part of the hints. Jigsaw puzzles that advertise themselves as being highly difficult may have a combination of these difficulties. [Means for solving the problem]

[0013] A puzzle according to one aspect of the present invention that solves the above problem satisfies all of the following requirements (1) to (4) and has a plurality of small pieces that can be arranged adjacently in two dimensions to form a predetermined overall set shape with just the right amount of pieces. (1) Each piece is roughly polygonal, surrounded by multiple straight lines. (2) No piece is congruent with any other piece. (3) When the entire shape of the set is constructed without excess or deficiency, all of the straight edges of the small pieces (excluding the straight edges that are in contact with the outer periphery) are aligned with the straight edges of other small pieces, but the straight edges are not aligned with each other without excess or deficiency. (4) At least one of the length of a straight side and the angle of each corner of at least one small piece is the same as at least one of the length of a straight side and the angle of each corner of any other small piece.

[0014] In this respect, although not limited thereto, it is preferred that the overall shape of the collection is defined by an outer frame.

[0015] In this respect, it is preferable, but not limited to, to have a base that supports the outer frame and the plurality of small pieces.

[0016] In this respect, although not limited thereto, the substantially polygonal shape preferably includes a substantially quadrilateral shape.

[0017] In this respect, although not limited thereto, it is preferable that the substantially polygonal shape is made up of substantially quadrilaterals only. [Effects of the Invention]

[0018] As described above, the present invention provides a puzzle that has a similar appearance to a jigsaw puzzle but is different in difficulty from conventional jigsaw puzzles. Specifically, the puzzle is designed to require the player to find the correct answer from among possible combinations, which is a first difference in difficulty from conventional jigsaw puzzles. Second, the absence of a direct one-to-one match between adjacent pieces also makes the puzzle different from conventional jigsaw puzzles. Furthermore, when designing a specific puzzle problem, it is possible to adjust the degree of similarity between the shapes of the pieces and the number of possible combinations that can be generated. The higher the similarity between the shapes of the pieces, the greater the difficulty of finding a possible combination, and the greater the number of possible combinations, the greater the difficulty of finding the correct answer from among them. [Brief explanation of the drawings]

[0019] [Figure 1] FIG. 1 is a diagram showing an outline of an example of a puzzle according to an embodiment. [Figure 2] 10A and 10B are diagrams illustrating examples of puzzle pieces according to an embodiment. [Figure 3] 10A and 10B are diagrams illustrating examples of things that do not fall under puzzle pieces according to an embodiment. [Figure 4] FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating requirements for puzzle pieces according to an embodiment. [Figure 5] FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating requirements for puzzle pieces according to an embodiment. [Figure 6] FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating requirements for puzzle pieces according to an embodiment. [Figure 7]10A and 10B are diagrams illustrating fitting of puzzle pieces according to an embodiment. [Figure 8] FIG. 10 is a diagram showing an outline of another example of a puzzle according to an embodiment. [Figure 9] FIG. 10 is a diagram showing an outline of another example of a puzzle according to an embodiment. [Figure 10] 10A to 10C are diagrams illustrating a design method for puzzle pieces according to an embodiment. [Figure 11] 10A to 10C are diagrams illustrating a design method for puzzle pieces according to an embodiment. [Figure 12] 10A to 10C are diagrams illustrating a design method for puzzle pieces according to an embodiment. [Figure 13] FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating a case where puzzle pieces according to an embodiment are adjacently arranged; [Figure 14] FIG. 10 is a diagram showing a predetermined outline of a puzzle according to an embodiment. [Figure 15] 10A and 10B are diagrams illustrating the innovations involved in adjusting the difficulty level of a puzzle according to an embodiment. [Figure 16] 10A and 10B are diagrams illustrating the innovations involved in adjusting the difficulty level of a puzzle according to an embodiment. [Figure 17] 10A and 10B are diagrams illustrating the innovations involved in adjusting the difficulty level of a puzzle according to an embodiment. [Figure 18] 10A and 10B are diagrams illustrating the innovations involved in adjusting the difficulty level of a puzzle according to an embodiment. [Figure 19] 10A and 10B are diagrams illustrating the innovations involved in adjusting the difficulty level of a puzzle according to an embodiment. [Figure 20] 10A and 10B are diagrams illustrating the innovations involved in adjusting the difficulty level of a puzzle according to an embodiment. [Figure 21] 1 is a diagram showing an outline of an example of a product configuration of a puzzle according to an embodiment. FIG. [Figure 22] 1 is a diagram showing an outline of an example of a product configuration of a puzzle according to an embodiment. FIG. [Figure 23] 1 is a diagram showing an outline of an example of a product configuration of a puzzle according to an embodiment. FIG. [Figure 24] FIG. 10 is a diagram showing another example of a puzzle according to the embodiment. [Figure 25]FIG. 10 is a diagram showing another example of a puzzle according to the embodiment. [Figure 26] FIG. 10 is a diagram showing another example of a puzzle according to the embodiment. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0020] Hereinafter, embodiments of the present invention will be described in detail with reference to the drawings. However, the present invention can be embodied in many different forms and is not limited to the specific examples described in the following embodiments and examples. Furthermore, the present invention can be implemented in combination with various other non-competing publicly known technologies, such as the above-mentioned Patent Document 1.

[0021] (puzzle) FIG. 1 is a diagram showing an outline of a puzzle Z according to this embodiment (hereinafter simply referred to as "the puzzle"). As shown in this diagram, the puzzle Z has a plurality of small pieces P that satisfy all of the following requirements (1) to (4) and that can be arranged adjacently in two dimensions to form a predetermined overall collective shape W without excess or deficiency. Details of requirements (1) to (4) will be explained later. (1) Each piece P is an approximately polygonal shape surrounded by multiple straight sides. (2) No piece P is congruent with any other piece P. (3) When the entire set shape W is constructed without excess or deficiency, all of the straight edges of the small pieces P (excluding the straight edges tangent to the outer boundary S) are aligned with the straight edges of other small pieces P, but the straight edges are not aligned with each other without excess or deficiency. (4) At least one of the length of a straight side and the angle of each corner of at least one small piece P is the same as at least one of the length of a straight side and the angle of each corner of any other small piece P.

[0022] This puzzle Z is typically assumed to be a jigsaw puzzle in which the overall set shape W is predetermined by an outer frame F, but it may also be a puzzle in which the overall set shape W is expressed by printing, engraving, etc. on the base surface. In the case of a jigsaw puzzle with an outer frame F, it is preferable that it has a base that supports this outer frame F and the multiple pieces P. This is because providing a base makes it possible to stably carry and store the outer frame F and the pieces P.

[0023] First, each small piece P is an approximate polygon surrounded by multiple straight sides (requirement (1)). Here, "polygon" refers to, but is not limited to, a shape in which multiple straight lines are arranged to surround a predetermined area, such as a triangle, rectangle, pentagon, or hexagon. The term "approximate polygon" refers to a concept that includes manufacturing errors and rounded polygons with rounded corners. For example, as shown in FIG. 2, a small piece P having a rounded polygon (rounded rectangle, rounded triangle) can be approximated to a polygon (rectangle, triangle). On the other hand, as shown in FIG. 3, if the sides are curved or have irregularities for combining with other small pieces P, this application considers it unable to be approximated to a polygon and does not satisfy the requirements of the application. By making the sides flat, the constraints on the combination of small pieces can be relaxed, and the positional constraints when matching sides can also be relaxed.

[0024] Furthermore, in this puzzle Z, none of the multiple pieces P are congruent with any other piece P (requirement (2)). This is an important requirement to prevent a situation where any of the multiple pieces P are congruent, and interchangeable pieces would also be solutions, leading to a decrease in difficulty. Here, "congruent" includes cases where pieces are perfectly identical, but also includes congruence to the extent that they can be considered identical due to manufacturing errors. By providing differences between the pieces P that are greater than the manufacturing errors, it is possible to avoid situations where pieces P accidentally match due to manufacturing errors, and to prevent an unintended decrease in difficulty. In Figure 4, there are no congruent pairs among the pieces P1 to P3.

[0025] Furthermore, in this puzzle Z, when the entire set shape W is constructed without excess or deficiency, the straight edges of each small piece (excluding the outer straight edges that constitute the entire set shape W) are aligned with the straight edges of other adjacent small pieces, but these straight edges do not coincide or share exactly (requirement (3)). Figure 5 shows an example where this requirement is not met, and Figure 6 shows an example where this requirement is met. In the example of Figure 5, at the connection point between small pieces P1 and P2, one edge of each small piece coincides and shares. More specifically, small pieces P1 and P2 share edge DC. Small pieces P2 and P3 only have vertex E in common, which does not satisfy this condition. In Figure 6, none of the edges coincide or share. Specifically, edge CD of small piece P1 and edge EF of small piece P2 are partially shared but do not coincide, and edge GH of small piece P2 and edge IG of small piece P3 are partially shared but do not coincide. When edges are shared, the number of possible neighbors can be limited to a very small number when solving the puzzle, which reduces the difficulty.

[0026] Furthermore, in this puzzle Z, at least one of the lengths of the straight sides and the angles of each corner of at least one small piece P matches at least one of the lengths of the straight sides and the angles of each corner of at least one other small piece P (requirement (4)). This case is illustrated in Figure 4 above, where the side lengths a-f are different from each other, the side length b' is different from the side length b, and the side length c' is different from the side length c. Small pieces P1 and P2, for example, match in terms of the side lengths a, b, and d and the fact that one of the interior angles of the rectangle is 90 degrees. Small pieces P2 and P3 match in terms of the side lengths a, d, and two of the interior angles are 90 degrees and 100 degrees, respectively. By providing some matching portions between the small pieces P, there are more likely to be multiple candidates when fitting the small pieces P together, which has the advantage of maintaining a high level of difficulty as a puzzle. An example of this is shown in Figure 7. This figure shows an example of a situation where there are multiple candidate pieces P for placement in each of three blank spaces B1, B2, and B3 that arise during the puzzle-solving process (candidates P1-1 and P1-2 for B1, P2-1, P2-2, and P2-3 for B2, and P3-1, P3-2, P3-3, P3-4, and P3-5 for B3). The side lengths and interior angles of the parts marked with black dots in the figure match the shape of the blank spaces. As shown in this figure, if there are blank spaces B1, B2, and B3 in which a piece P can be inserted, each blank space can be fitted with a piece P whose sides and angles match those of the blank space. However, if there are multiple pieces with the same straight side lengths and corner angles, there will be multiple pieces P whose sides and angles match those of the blank space. For B1 to B3 in Figure 7, there are 2 x 3 x 5 = 30 candidate combinations of pieces. This situation presents a difficulty that does not exist in jigsaw puzzles, which require one-to-one matching of pieces.

[0027] An example of a puzzle that satisfies requirements (1) to (4) is one in which squares of roughly the same size are arranged, such as the one shown in Figure 1. The size of the polygons does not need to be limited to roughly one type, and multiple types of polygons, such as triangles, squares, pentagons, and hexagons, may be mixed. Specific examples include a puzzle in which roughly two types of squares, one large and one small, are mixed, as shown in Figure 8, and a puzzle in which triangles and hexagons are mixed, as shown in Figure 9.

[0028] As described above, Puzzle Z, while having a similar appearance to a jigsaw puzzle, satisfies the above requirements (1) to (4), providing a puzzle with a level of difficulty different from that of conventional jigsaw puzzles. The difficulties of conventional jigsaw puzzles include the difficulty of finding one-to-one matches between the pieces due to the large number of pieces; the difficulty of handling the pieces with fingers because they are too small; the difficulty of determining whether a one-to-one match is correct because the size of the pieces themselves and the differences in the unevenness and length of the pieces' edges are too small; and the difficulty of using the continuity of the image as a hint, even though it is part of the hint, because the image is too detailed and monotonous. Jigsaw puzzles that claim to be highly difficult may combine these difficulties. Puzzle Z's problem setting requires the player to find the correct answer from among possible combinations, which is a first difference in difficulty from conventional jigsaw puzzles. Second, the lack of a direct one-to-one match between adjacent pieces also makes it different from conventional jigsaw puzzles. Furthermore, when designing a specific puzzle, it is possible to adjust the degree of similarity between the shapes of the pieces and the number of possible combinations. The higher the similarity between the shapes of the pieces, the greater the difficulty of finding a possible combination. The larger the number of possible combinations, the greater the difficulty of finding the correct solution. Compared to other prior art puzzles, the similarity between the shapes of the pieces tends to be low, making it difficult to impart a regularity to the arrangement of the pieces, as shown in Figures 1, 8, and 9. Furthermore, increasing the difficulty of the puzzle can suddenly become extremely difficult. However, this puzzle does not have these problems. While the silhouette puzzle inherently has limited design freedom for increasing the number of pieces or the size of the puzzle, this puzzle offers greater design freedom at the expense of giving meaning to the overall shape of the set. Missing any one of the four requirements of claim 1 of this application would result in the loss of one of the benefits.

[0029] (Design method) Here, we will explain the design method for Puzzle Z. In cases where the approximate polygons consist only of approximate quadrilaterals and the size is generally limited to one type, it is preferable to explain the design method using examples because it is very simple. Here, we will explain one example of a method for designing Puzzle Z in the form shown in Figure 1, but this does not exclude the possibility that a puzzle in the form shown in Figure 1 could be designed using other methods. Furthermore, when designing puzzles in forms different from those shown in Figure 1, such as Figures 8 and 9, the design method will naturally also be different.

[0030] First, as shown in Figure 10, a base square (regular rectangle) ABCD is set, and options for lines passing through each of its vertices are prepared. Here, each option can be expressed by a slope index. Specifically, in this example, five options with slopes from the sides of the base square that differ by 5° are assigned slope indexes "1" to "5." Next, as shown in Figure 11, by selecting one slope index for each of vertices A to D, one line passing through each of vertices A to D can be identified, and a new rectangle A'B'C'D' can be obtained with vertices A' to D' at the intersections A' to D' of the four lines. This becomes the approximate polygon of piece P. The shape of rectangle A'B'C'D' can be expressed as a string of four slope indexes concatenated in order. In the example shown in Figure 11, it can be expressed as "2531." This method allows the coordinate values ​​of points A' to D' to be calculated specifically in a two-dimensional coordinate plane, and as a result, the lengths of each side of the rectangle can also be determined. The values ​​of the four interior angles can also be determined from the slope index settings. Furthermore, by setting the tilt selection frame as described above, it is possible to realize a situation where two rectangles with different shape representations are not congruent, even when reversed. Furthermore, none of the 625 (5^4) possible rectangles generated by selecting the tilt index are line-symmetric, and therefore cannot be congruent with their own reversed shape. There are many pairs of similar shapes, such as "1111" and "2222," that have the same four interior angle values ​​but different side lengths. For example, "1111" and "1112" share one side length and two interior angles, while "1111" and "1122" share one interior angle. There are many pairs like this where some side lengths or interior angles are common.

[0031] Next, we will show an example of a method for generating the overall set shape W and the pattern for dividing it into approximate polygons. Figure 12 shows an example of a 3x4 grid of points, specifically, a grid of points arranged adjacent to each other to form a reference square ABCD. By labeling each grid point with A through D as shown in this figure and using the method for generating the quadrilaterals A'B'C'D' described above, it is possible to create a grid of multiple non-congruent quadrilaterals A'B'C'D' arranged side by side, as shown in Figure 13. However, in this case, it is necessary to list the shape representations of all quadrilaterals and take care to avoid overlaps. Figure 14, which extracts only the outer boundary, becomes the overall set shape W and the shape of the outer boundary S.

[0032] These steps allow for the realization of a puzzle with the appearance shown in Figure 1, which is one embodiment of a puzzle that satisfies all of the above requirements (1) to (4). Figure 14 shows a line diagram consisting of the outer straight lines of the overall shape W of this puzzle set, and can be used as a component of the correct layout diagram. Furthermore, when forming a group of small pieces P and an outer frame F simultaneously from a single sheet of material by press cutting or other methods, the line diagram in Figure 13 can be used as a cutting diagram. Since the two-dimensional coordinates of the vertices of the approximate polygon can be obtained, each small piece P can also be created individually by cutting or other methods. Furthermore, due to the processing accuracy required when manufacturing the small pieces P, care can be taken to avoid using pairs of shape representations that are nearly congruent or that are nearly line-symmetrical, resulting in the same shape on both sides, on the puzzle board. By changing the scale of the initially prepared lattice points, puzzle boards of different scales, such as 10 rows and 12 columns, can be generated. By changing the selection of the gradient index at each lattice point, boards with different shapes, configurations, and arrangements of the small pieces P can be created even at the same board scale. The method illustrated here does not necessarily guarantee that there is only one arrangement of approximate polygons that satisfies the set overall shape W, but after creating the correct solution, it is possible to check whether there are any other solutions besides the correct solution before manufacturing the puzzle product. Furthermore, it can be fun for puzzle solvers to search for other solutions besides the pre-prepared solutions.

[0033] Furthermore, in this puzzle Z, even if the pieces P do not have any identifying information, including a picture or pattern, it is possible to arrive at the correct arrangement based on their shapes alone, and the most difficult situation is when the pieces P are plain and have no identifying information at all that would allow them to be clearly distinguished from one another. If the front and back of the pieces P have the same finish, the difficulty level becomes even higher, as it is impossible to distinguish between the front and back. Because the pieces P are all polygons with similar shapes, if they are plain and have a single color, it is difficult to remember the arrangement of the pieces P even after solving the puzzle once, and it is expected that the difficulty level will not decrease much even on subsequent attempts. In other words, this puzzle Z has the characteristic of being enjoyable over and over again, and is useful as a means of maintaining and improving brain and finger function, as well as being economically efficient.

[0034] Conversely, if identification information that clearly distinguishes between the pieces P is included, it can significantly reduce the difficulty and reduce interest. However, by devising the configuration of the identification information, it is possible to prevent this decrease in difficulty and make it less memorable after solving the puzzle once. Furthermore, when puzzle products include components such as a solution diagram that meticulously depicts the arrangement of all the pieces P or a hint diagram that only presents some of the information, by making it difficult for the solution or hint to be remembered even after solving the puzzle once using the solution diagram or hint diagram, it is possible to retain the enjoyment of solving the puzzle again from the beginning without looking at the solution diagram or hint diagram. As for the identification information, even when the identification code is in the form of a matrix code corresponding to the row and column numbers of an orthogonal grid array, various methods such as those shown in Figures 15 to 19 are possible. When the identification code is written on each piece P, it is possible to make it difficult to determine the orientation of each piece P in the correct arrangement, as shown in Figure 20. By writing identification codes or the like based on the same external rules on the front and back of each piece P, it is possible to make it difficult to distinguish between the front and back of the piece P.

[0035] Figure 15 shows an example of generating an identification code that indicates the correct placement location for each of the pieces P of this puzzle Z by combining a row code consisting of one number and a column code consisting of one letter. By not using a regular sequence of numbers and letters such as "1, 2, 3, ..." or "A, B, C, ...", it is possible to determine where each piece P should be placed just by looking at the identification code, thereby mitigating the significant decrease in difficulty.

[0036] Figure 16 shows another example of the same correspondence between identification codes as in the previous figure. By using a single specific kanji character for the row code and column code, it is possible to make it difficult to tell at a glance which kanji character is the row code or column code.

[0037] Figure 17 is another example of the above-mentioned correspondence between identification codes. By leaving out row or column codes in some of the identification codes and by making the display order of the row and column codes in the identification codes inconsistent, it is possible to make the regularity of the identification codes difficult to understand.

[0038] Figure 18 is another example of a case where identification codes are associated, similar to the above figure. The row and column codes are a mixture of uppercase and lowercase letters and numbers, and one of two code characters is used for each row and column. The order in which the row and column codes are displayed in the identification code is also inconsistent, making it difficult to understand the regularity of the identification code.

[0039] Figure 19 is another example of a case where an identification code is associated, just like the figure above. This figure shows a four-digit identification code. To avoid misreading the identification code upside down, the most significant digit must be 0, and no other digits should contain 0. The row code is used for the ones digit of the identification code. As for the column code, the even or odd digit of the tens digit is used to indicate only the even or odd column number of the correct arrangement. By mixing meaningless information (in this case, the hundreds digit) into the identification code, it is possible to make it difficult to understand the pattern of the identification code.

[0040] Furthermore, when the identification codes are written on the pieces P or the correct diagram, the orientation of the pieces P is randomized, which makes it possible to avoid a decrease in difficulty by making it possible to determine the correct orientation of the pieces P just by looking at the pieces P. Figure 20 shows an example of the correct arrangement of pieces P in 3 rows and 4 columns.

[0041] Furthermore, in the example of the design method for the overall set shape W and the cutting pattern into approximate polygons, the approximate polygons have different shapes with no overlapping on the front and back, so Wrev, which is the inverted overall set shape W, can be formed using P'rev, which is the inverted version of all approximate polygons P'. When solving the puzzle, only either the front or back of the piece P is used. Using this, it is possible to create a puzzle product that can be played in a total of four ways, depending on whether the front or back is used and whether the solution diagram or hint diagram is referred to.

[0042] As a specific example of a puzzle product configuration, the middle frame, which plays the role of the outer frame F that displays the overall set shape W, can be attached to either the front or back side, as shown in Figure 21 (top view and cross-section view) and Figure 22 (perspective view). Alternatively, as shown in Figure 23, a middle sheet can be sandwiched between the base and middle frame. Instead of sandwiching the middle sheet between the base and middle frame, puzzle solvers can refer to it only when necessary. The middle sheet can be a solution diagram that meticulously describes the placement of all pieces P, a hint diagram that provides only partial information, or a memo sheet that allows the solver to take notes on the progress. It is also possible to provide a combination of these middle sheets, allowing the solver to choose which one to use (or none at all). Puzzle product providers can differentiate the difficulty of the front and back sides of the puzzle by adjusting the designs and identification codes printed on the front and back of the pieces P.

[0043] Furthermore, the outer frame F that defines the small pieces P and the outer boundary S, which is the overall shape W of the set, can also be thicker. FIG. 24 shows an example in which the thickness is close to the side length of the reference square used in the example of the approximate polygon generation method. The increased thickness makes it difficult to distinguish the front, back, and side faces of the small pieces, increasing the difficulty of the puzzle. FIGS. 25 and 26 show examples in which the thickness is even thicker, more like a square bar. In particular, FIG. 26 shows an example of a puzzle in which square bars are laid sideways and stacked vertically to complete the overall shape of the set within an upright plane. Even in these cases, the element of a puzzle in which approximate polygons are arranged two-dimensionally to form the overall shape W of the set without excess or deficiency is maintained, and by satisfying the above requirements (1) to (4), the puzzle has a different level of difficulty from existing jigsaw puzzles. [Industrial Applicability]

[0044] The present invention has industrial applicability as a puzzle, not only as an entertainment item but also as a means for maintaining and improving brain and finger functions, and for evaluating and improving logical thinking ability, perseverance, concentration, etc. [Explanation of symbols]

[0045] Z...Puzzle W…Overall shape of set P…Small piece S...Outer wall F...Outer frame

Claims

1. A puzzle having a plurality of small pieces that meet all of the following requirements (1) to (4) and that can be arranged adjacently in two dimensions to form a predetermined overall set shape without any excess or deficiency. (1) Each of the small pieces is approximately polygonal and surrounded by multiple straight sides. (2) None of the pieces are congruent with any other pieces. (3) When the entire shape of the set is formed without excess or deficiency, all of the straight line sides of the small pieces (excluding the straight line sides that are in contact with the outer periphery) are aligned with the straight line sides of any of the other small pieces, but the straight line sides are not aligned with each other without excess or deficiency. (4) At least one of the length of the straight side and the angle of each corner of at least one of the small pieces is the same as at least one of the length of the straight side and the angle of each corner of any other small piece.

2. The puzzle of claim 1 , wherein the collective overall shape is defined by an outline.

3. 3. The puzzle of claim 2, further comprising a base supporting said outer frame and said plurality of pieces.

4. The puzzle of claim 1 , wherein the approximate polygonal shape includes an approximate quadrilateral shape.

5. 2. The puzzle according to claim 1, wherein said approximate polygons consist of only approximate quadrilaterals.

Images