Go Zendo

I changed my mind and would make the next game, if you still want. How difficult of a rule do you want? ^^


Yes, this was just my starting point. I was assuming the same rules for the last game since nothing else was stated, but future rule makers can choose to modify all assumptions as long as they clearly communicate that.

1 Like

Which rule are you going to oust? Are you going to change it to a chess board :stuck_out_tongue:


I think breaking the symmetry assumption might be interesting

It think we can probably handle slightly harder than the last two games. I wouldn’t make it too much harder though.

1 Like

I’m not sure how difficult this is going to be, but here we go ^^

I didn’t change the assumptions of previous games.

Koans that know Buddha-Nature:

canvas canvas2 canvas3 canvas4 canvas5 canvas6 canvas8 canvas9 canvas10 canvas11 canvas12

Koans that don’t know Buddha-Nature:

untitled untitled2 untitled3 untitled4 untitled5 untitled6 untitled7 untitled8 untitled9

[EDIT by @Vsotvep: continued in this post while Martin is taking a break]


untitled (8)

1 Like


1 Like

untitled (10)

1 Like

And if that 1-2 stone is changed to black?

untitled (11)


I’ll submit two boards at once, hopefully no one minds:

untitled (23) untitled (22)

(this will probably rule out “there is not exactly two white stones on the board”, which would work for the boards seen so far but is likely to simple to be correct)


Indeed the second one knows Buddha-Nature, the first does not.


1 Like

untitled (13)

1 Like

Guess: white has either a chain of size at least two or fewer than two stones on the board

untitled (16)

1 Like

Quick question: fewer than two stones <=> 1 or less stones ?

Edit: I’m asking because english is not my first language and I need to understand this precisely ^^

“Fewer than two” means “less than 2” means “< 2” means “1 or less”

1 Like

sorry i need some time to come up with counterexamples, because the statement twists my brain circuits.


Ok @yebellz your rule is unfortunately not right, and I added (hopefully correct) counterexamples. Now for @RubyMineshaft’s Koan …