GB2454535A

GB2454535A - Puzzle game with different puzzle piece types

Info

Publication number: GB2454535A
Application number: GB0722191A
Authority: GB
Inventors: Nigel Robert Wood
Original assignee: Individual
Current assignee: Individual
Priority date: 2007-11-12
Filing date: 2007-11-12
Publication date: 2009-05-13
Also published as: GB0722191D0

Abstract

A puzzle game, consisting of two or more single or multi-facet (polygonal or polyhedral) puzzle pieces, utilising two or more different puzzle piece types, each puzzle piece type having a two or more facets with three or more edges each edge ascribed with one or more indicia. The indicia are allocated such that when all, or a sub-set, of the puzzle pieces are placed in an unique relative two or three-dimensional positional and rotational configuration, so that the indicia of two or more adjacent puzzle piece(s) match in either two or three-dimensions and that the different puzzle piece types are correctly positioned, a required two or three-dimensional configuration/pattern (large) is obtained. The pieces may have a central indicia also. The indicia can be an alphanumeric character, a solid or broken colour, a pattern consisting of two or more colours, raised dots, one or more shapes/symbols or combinations of these. The puzzle pieces may have attachments allowing them to be joined. The pieces may also have passive or electronic identification to allow the location of the pieces within the completed puzzle to be determined. The puzzle may be implemented electronically via a computer program or the like.

Description

1 24545

A PUZZLE GAME WITH MIXED PUZZLE PIECE TYPES

This invention relates to puzzle games in which there are two or more puzzle piece types, each type having one or more facets and each facet having one or more indicia ascribed per edge.

Many people, young and old, enjoy the mental stimulation and achievement satisfaction solving a puzzle game brings, whether this be a traditional puzzle game such as Towers of Hanoi', Solitaire or a Jigsaw puzzle; or one of the newer puzzle games such as Rubik's Cube or Sudoku. All of these puzzle games have one common factor that a single player (or puzzler) traditionally plays them.

As means of introducing the key aspects covered by this invention consider Microsoft -Corporation's computer-based puzzle game Tetravex and the mathematical work of Jorge Rezende, University of Lisbon.

The computer-based puzzle game Tetravex, devised by Scott Ferguson of Microsoft Corporation, was distributed as part of the Entertainment Pack' for the company's Windows 95 Operating System. Various clones have been produced since for other Operating Systems, for example Linux. The puzzle game involves the visual representation of an N x M grid of single-facet square tiles, with numerical indicia located adjacent to each of the four edges (of each tile). From notes on the game, and that of its clones, allocation of the paired indicia of adjacent (touching) edges of different tiles relies solely on a random process (allocation), with edges of tiles forming the outer boundaries of the grid also being allocated random indicia. At the beginning of the game the solution' is shown until the player starts the game -the position of the tiles is then randomly shuffled. The objective of the game is to restore the position of the tiles to reproduce the starting configuration (the solution') by the game player (puzzler) selecting and swapping tiles. The game is restrictive in that only the position of the tiles can be varied -no rotation is possible. Although a solution is implicitly guaranteed, through the allocation of the indicia, there are no checks made to remove the possibility of multiple solutions or that the allocation of indicia is unique (it is possible for multiple tiles to have the same indicia set). In summary the game although challenging is significantly less demanding than if the game included rotation of the puzzle pieces and guaranteed an unique solution.

The mathematical work of Jorge Rezende has been published in the papers entitled "On the Puzzles with Polyhedra and Numbers" and "Puzzles with Polyhedra and Permutation Groups", available via the web site of the Mathematical Group of the University of Lisbon (http://gfm.cii. fc. ul. ptlMembers/IR.pt PT. html). The publications cover the mathematical methods behind using polygonal plates (tiles), with numerical indicia ascribed to each edge, to form the surface of regular polyhedron. Although the analysis is very detailed and covers a method (effectively a search based routine) that determines how many solutions a particular indicia set can produce, i.e. how many different ways the tiles can be arranged to form the surface of the polyhedron by matching adjacent indicia of different tiles, there is no discussion on limiting the allocation of the indicia to ensure an unique solution.

The key feature of the two-highlighted puzzle games is that both utilise a single puzzle piece type. In addition the puzzle pieces only have a single indicia ascribed per edge. This means that when matching indicia, of adjacent puzzle pieces, it is required, at most, to match one puzzle piece to one other.

If the number of indicia per edge were increased to two, for example, a maximum of three puzzle pieces would be involved in the matching. It follows that the maximum number of puzzle pieces that can be matched for a given number of indicia per edge is I + the number of Indicia -although geometric restrictions will limit actual puzzle configurations (ability to actually form puzzle configurations from regular polygons).

The family of puzzle games described by this patent solves the limitations in the two highlighted examples to produce a set of challenging puzzle games in which the indicia allocation is such there is an unique relative placement' of the puzzle pieces that achieve the required target' configuration. In addition this patent covers puzzle games with two or more different puzzle piece types and with one or more indicia ascribed per edge, utilising: * two or more different single- facet puzzle pieces (single-facet tiles) to form two-dimensional puzzle game configurations, e.g. N x M grids, regular and irregular polygons; * two or more different dual-facet puzzle pieces (dual-facet tiles) to form dual-sided puzzle games, e.g. dual-sided N x M grids, regular and irregular polygons; * two or more different multi-facet puzzle pieces to form two or more puzzles where each puzzle piece facet contributes to one of many two-dimensional puzzles, a centrally positioned indicia is used to differentiate which facet contributes to which puzzle game. A multi-sided dice could be used to randomly select which of the puzzles the puzzler is to solve; * two or more different multi-facetted puzzle pieces to form three-dimensional puzzles, e.g. regular and irregular polyhedra.

In all of the above puzzles the objective of the puzzler is to match either the single or multi edge ascribed indicia of adjacent puzzle pieces, in either two or three dimensions, to form the required target' configuration, correctly observing the restrictions in placement of each puzzle piece type. The key aspect of this invention is the allocation of the indicia which controlled by an Indicia Allocation Algorithm (IAA), that takes into account Ji possible positional (including puzzle piece type constraints) and rotational pennutations of the puzzle pieces, guarantees the solution (or target' configuration) requires an unique relative placement of the puzzle pieces. It should be noted that in many cases the target' configuration may have many rotational symmetrical configurations and, hence, several actual' solutions may exists, e.g. an N x M grid (with N=M) would have 4 actual solutions and an N x M grid (if N!= M) would have 2 actual solutions, due to rotational symmetry of the grid -noting that in cases the relative position/orientation of the pieces is the same.

Embodiments of the invention will now be described, by way of example only, with reference to the accompanying diagrams, in which: Figure 1 shows a standard' single facet N x M (N=M=2) grid based puzzle using 4 single-facet square based tiles (of the same type -same size, shape and style), with a single indicia ascribed per edge. The allocation of the indicia (to each tile) is such an unique solution exists for the relative position and rotation of the 4 tiles, whilst minimising the number of different indicia used.

Figure 2a shows a single facet N x M (N=M=3) grid based puzzle using 9 single-facet square based tiles of two different types, each type has a single indicia ascribed per edge.

Puzzle piece type [1] (figure 2b) has a circular centrally located spot' and puzzle piece type [2] (figure 2c) has a square centrally located spot'. It is required that the 9 puzzle pieces be positioned so that the three type [1] puzzle pieces (circular spot') form a diagonal pattern (top-left corner to bottom-right corner) by matching the indicia of adjacent (touching) puzzle pieces. The matching is restricted to be piece-to-piece. The allocation of the indicia (to each tile) is such an unique solution exists for the relative position and rotation of the 9 tiles (observing correct placement of the two different puzzle piece types), whilst minimising the number of different indicia used.

Figures 3a-3d show different views of a multi-facet hexahedron (cube) shaped puzzle using 8 six-facet hexahedron (cube) based puzzle pieces of two different types, each type having a single indicia ascribed per edge. Puzzle piece type [1] (figure 3e) has centrally located spot' whilst puzzle piece type [2] (figure 31) has a square centrally located spot'. It is required that the 8 puzzle pieces be positioned to form a 2x2x2 three-dimensional configuration (a larger hexahedron or cube) so that the type [2] puzzle pieces (square spot') form a diagonal pattern (top-left corner to bottom-right corner) all six facets (of the larger hexahedron) by matching the indicia of adjacent (touching) puzzle pieces in three-dimensions. The matching is restricted to piece-to-piece. The allocation of the indicia (to each tile) is such an unique solution exists for the relative position and rotation of the 8 hexahedron puzzle pieces (observing correct placement of the two different puzzle piece types), whilst minimising the number of different indicia used.

Figure 4 shows a single facet based puzzle using 4 single-facet triangular shaped tiles and 1 single-facet square shaped tile. Both puzzle piece types have a single indicia ascribed per edge. The matching of indicia is restricted to piece-to-piece. The allocation of the indicia (to each tile) is such an unique solution exists for the relative position and rotation of the 5 tiles (observing correct placement of the two puzzle piece types), whilst minimising the number of different indicia used.

Figure 5 shows a single facet based puzzle using 8 single-facet triangular shaped tiles and 4 single-facet square shaped tiles. Both puzzle piece types have a single indicia ascribed per edge. The matching of indicia is restricted to piece-to-piece. The allocation of the indicia (to each tile) is such an unique solution exists for the relative position and rotation of the 12 tiles (observing correct placement of the two puzzle piece types), whilst minimising the number of different indicia used.

Figure 6a shows a single facet wall' based puzzle using 10 single-facet full-sized (type [1], figure 6c) brick' shaped tiles and 4 half-sized (type [2], figure 6b) brick' shaped tiles. The full-sized brick' shaped pieces have dual indicia ascribed per edge, whilst the half-sized brick' shaped pieces only have a single ascribed indicia per edge.

The matching of indicia requires both piece-to-piece and piece-to-multi-piece matching. The allocation of the indicia (to each tile) is such an unique solution exists for the relative position and rotation of the 14 (full and half-size) brick' shaped tiles (observing the correct position of the two different puzzle piece types), whilst minimising the number of different indicia used.

Figures 7a and 7b show two views of a dual-facet wall' based puzzle with 3 courses (rows) using 5 dual-facet full-sized (Type [1], figure 7d) brick' shaped puzzle pieces and 2 dual-facet half-sized (Type [2], figure 7c) brick' shaped puzzle pieces. The type [1] full-sized brick' shaped pieces have dual indicia ascribed per edge whilst the type [2] half-sized' brick' shaped pieces only have a single indicia ascribed per edge. The matching of indicia requires both piece-to-piece and piece-to-multi-piece matching of both the front-to-front and rear-to-rear facets. The allocation of the indicia (to each dual-facet puzzle piece) is such an unique solution exists for the relative position and rotation of the 7 brick' shaped tiles (observing correct positioning of each puzzle piece type), whilst minimising the number of different indicia used.

Figures 8a-8d show different views of a multi-facet Square base pyramid' based puzzle using 13 multi-facet puzzle pieces of three different types with either a single or dual indicia ascribed per edge. The three different puzzle piece types utilised are a single five-facet Square base Pyramid' (figure 8e, a Pentahedron), eight six-facet Right-angled block' (figure 8f, a Hexahedron) and four six-facet slanted block' (figure 8g, also a Hexahedron). Of particular note is that type [2] and type [3] puzzle pieces are asymmetric and have a different number of indicia ascribed per edge. The matching of indicia requires piece-to-multi-piece matching in three-dimensions. The allocation of the indicia (to each puzzle piece) is such an unique solution exists for the relative position and rotation of the 13 puzzle pieces (observing correct placement of the three puzzle piece types), whilst minimising the number of different indicia used and, importantly, the indicia of adjacent edges all four facets (front, left-hand side, rear and right-hand side) of the larger Square base Pyramid' are required to be matched.

In figure 1, four single-facet square based puzzle pieces (tiles) form a 2 x 2 (N=M=2) grid based puzzle. On each edge of each tile (110, 120, 130 and 140) a numerical indicia (111... 114, 121... 124, 131... 134 and 141... 144) has been allocated, by an IAA, such that there is an unique relative placement (considering j possible positional and rotational permutations) of the puzzle pieces to form the target' configuration (a 2x2 grid). In addition the IAA has minimised the number of different indicia used, maximising the puzzle's difficulty. The numerical indicia 1' (112, 113, 122, 124 and 131) is used 5 times, 2' (111, 123, 132, 141 and 144) is also used 5 times, 3' (114, 121, 133 and 134) is used 4 times and finally 4' (142 and 143) is used 2 times. The encircled indicia highlight the indicia required to be matched (total of 8)10 form the target' configuration. Of particular interest is that the matching of the indicia, on the edges of adjacent puzzle pieces, only involves two puzzle pieces or is piece-to-piece.

With reference to figure 1, allocate A' to the top left-hand corner position, B' to the top right-hand corner position, C' to the lower left-hand corner position and 1)' to the lower right-hand corner position. When the puzzler commences to solve the puzzle the puzzler has 4 possible puzzle pieces that could be positioned in position A', and that each piece could be in any of four rotational positions (equal to the number of edges). If P is the number of puzzle pieces, E the number of edges each puzzle piece has (and hence the number of indicia) and F the number of facets (of each puzzle piece, as F=1 in this case it is ignored) the number of possible permutations for position A is given by P. E. If piece 110 was positioned in position A' (in any rotational state) the puzzler would have to find a piece that would fit in position B' which has the same indicia on its left-hand edge (matching the indicia on the right- hand edge of piece A'). Ignoring pieces that do not have indicia that match, the number of permutations is now given by ( -i). E. If the puzzler continues to find pieces that match for positions C' and D' the puzzler (again ignoring pieces which the indicia do not match) would eventually have to consider (P.(P-l).(P-2).(P-3)).(E.E.E.E) or P!*E1'positional and rotational permutations to find the target' solution. With P4, E4 (F=l) the total number of positional and rotational permutations that the puzzler may have to consider would be 4!*4= 6144. It should be noted that as the N x M (N=M) grid has 4 symmetrical rotational states out of the 6144 possible permutations 4 permutations would yield a solution.

The permutation equation, defined above, only provides a relative indication of a particular puzzle configuration's difficulty, as the actual number of test scenarios (position and rotation of the puzzle pieces), that the puzzler may have to consider, is dependent upon the actual indicia set utilised. To calculate the number of actual test cases a search-based algorithm For the puzzle in figure 1 the search algorithm (or puzzler) would have to find the solution as follows: for position A' there are 16 scenarios (P. E), i.e. each puzzle piece in each rotational state. For each of the position A' scenarios detennine the unique puzzle piece in position B' that would match (right-hand edge indicia of piece in position A' matching the left-hand edge indicia of piece in position B') -there are a total of 44 cases. For each of these 44 cases find the unique puzzle piece that fits in position C' matching the piece (it's indicia) in position A'-this results in 63 valid cases. Finally find the unique puzzle piece for position D' that matches both of the pieces (their indicia) in positions B' and C'. Out of the 63 cases only 4 will result in a valid position D' match, these 4 being the 4 rotational solutions to the puzzle.

As shown in figure 1, the IAA does produce possible' clues to the solution (especially if numerical indicia are utilised) as the puzzler could guess that the indicia 1' is likely to be used in the top left-hand corner. Applying an interchange (for example 1-*3, 2-4, 3-+4 & 4-'2) of indicia would remove this dependency -although in practice the number of puzzle pieces has to be higher than 4 to produce useable results.

The IAA utilised is flexible in that by using a combination of constraints and indicia interchanges it is possible to produce different puzzle configurations with differing degrees of difficulty. The constraints limit the number of occurrences an indicia is (a) used in the whole puzzle (IMA.x PuzzLE), (b) used on a single puzzle piece (MAx_PIEcE) considering all facets and edges and (c) used on a puzzle piece's facet (IMAX_FAcET). For puzzle pieces with only one facet (F=1) constraints (b) and (c) are equal. It should be noted that by just applying an ii indicia interchange to an indicia set, consisting of I' different indicia, I' factorial (I!) different puzzle targets' could be derived -for the puzzle in figure 1, with 4 different Indicia, this could be 24 (4!).

If the indicia where non-alpha numerical characters the target' solution would be better hidden, as it removes any link to numerical sequences. For this reason it is considered that an actual puzzle implementation would use colours, shapes, shading patterns or combination of these three. The key is to have sufficient different patterns to enable unambiguous discrimination between different indicia and to avoid any possibility of the indicia providing any clue to the correct orientation of the puzzle piece in the target'. It should also be noted that raised dots could be utilised to aid blind or partially sighted puzzlers.

Figure 2a shows an embodiment in which nine (210... 290) single-indicia ascribed per edge square single-facet puzzle pieces (of two different puzzle piece types) form an N x M (N=M=3) grid-based puzzle (the target' configuration). Puzzle piece type [1] (figure 2b -210, 250 & 290) has a circular centrally located spot' and puzzle piece type [2] (figure 2c -220, 230, 240, 260, 270 & 280) has a square centrally located spot'. It is required that the 9 puzzle pieces be positioned so that the three type [1] puzzle pieces (circular spot') form a diagonal pattern (top-left corner to bottom-right corner) by matching the indicia of adjacent (touching) puzzle pieces in two-dimensions.

It should be noted that by using different ratios of type (1) and type (2) puzzle pieces alternative puzzle configurations (targets') could be produced adding another dimension to the difficulty level a particular puzzle configuration may have.

The permutation equation used above only deals with puzzles with the same puzzle piece type. To cater for puzzles with mixed puzzle piece types the equation needs altering to: P1!.E1" xP2!.E2"2 x... x1,!.E,(n _=flf',!.E,' , where n is the number of different puzzle piece types, P, represents the number of puzzle pieces of type n' and E the number of edges of puzzle piece type n'. For the puzzle shown in figure 2 the number of positional and rotational permutations that the puzzler may have to considered is now (n=2, P1=3 E1=4 and P2=6 E2=4) 3!43x 6!*46=1.132x109-compared with 9!49=9*5l2x1010, if only one puzzle piece type was used. This highlights that puzzles with multiple puzzle piece types generally reduce the difficulty level of a puzzle configuration when compared with puzzles implemented with only one puzzle piece type.

Figures 3a-3d show different views of an embodiment in which eight (310... 380) single-indicia ascribed per edge six-facet (hexahedron or cube) puzzle pieces of two different puzzle piece types form a larger hexahedron (a cube) shaped puzzle (the target' configuration). Puzzle pieces 310, 340, 360 and 380 (figure 3f) are of type (2), with a centrally placed square spot', and puzzle pieces 320, 330, 350 and 380 (figure 3e) are of type (1), no central spot'. The two puzzle pieces types are required to be positioned so that a diagonal pattern is produced (top- left corner to bottom-right corner) on ji six facets of the larger hexahedron (cube), whilst the indicia of adjacent puzzle pieces (in three-dimensions) are matched.

The revised positional and rotation permutation equation caters for puzzles with single facet puzzle pieces. Adding multi-facet puzzle piece capability to the equation gives: P!.(El.FxP2!.(El.Fl)P2x...xPn!.(El.Fl)hi)n_11p,!.(Eg.Ft)P:, wherenisthenumber of different puzzle piece types, P, represents the number of puzzle pieces of type n', F the number of facets of puzzle piece type n' and E the number of edges of puzzle piece type n'. For the puzzle configuration shown in figures 3a-3d the number of possible positional and rotational permutations that may have to be considered is 4!.(4.6)4x4!.(4.6)4 =6.34x10'3 (which should be compared with 8'.(4.6) =4438x1015 if only one cube based puzzle piece type was used).

Figure 4 shows an embodiment in which four (410... 440) single-indicia per edge triangular single-facet puzzle pieces (or tiles) and one (450) single-indicia ascribed per edge square shaped puzzle piece (or tile) form a star' shaped puzzle (the target' configuration). This highlights the use of two totally different puzzle piece types. The number of positional and rotational permutations that may have to be considered is 4!.3 x 1I.41 =7,776 (using the single facet variant of the permutation equation).

Figure 5 shows an embodiment again using two totally different puzzle piece types. Here eight (510, 515, 530, 535, 540, 545, 565 and 570) single-indicia ascribed per edge triangular single-facet puzzle pieces (or tiles) and four (520, 525, 550 & 560) single-indicia ascribed per edge square shaped puzzle piece (or tile) form a egg' shaped puzzle (the target' configuration). The number of positional and rotational permutations that may have to be considered is 8!*3 x 4!*4 =1.625 x l02 (using the single facet variant of the permutation equation).

Figure 6 shows an embodiment using two different puzzle piece types with different number of indicia ascribed per edge. Here ten (610, 615, 620, 630, 635, 645, 650, 655, 665 & 670, figure 6c) dual-indicia ascribed per edge full-sized brick' shaped single-facet puzzle pieces (or tiles) and four (625, 640, 660 & 675, figure 6b) single-indicia ascribed per edge half-sized brick' shaped puzzle pieces (or tile) form a wall' (of 4 courses or rows) shaped puzzle (the target' configuration). The number of positional and rotational permutations that may have to be considered is 10!.2'0x 4!*2 =1.427x 1012 (using the single facet variant of the permutation equation and observing that E1 = E2 =2). Of particular interest is the matching of indicia, which involves piece-to-piece matching (e.g. puzzle pieces 625 and 645 -using a pair of 3' indicia) and piece-to-multi-piece matching (e.g., puzzle pieces 610, 625 and 630 - using the two sets of indicia 4' pairs). It should be noted that as with the puzzle in figure 2 additional puzzle configurations (targets') could be generated if a centrally located indicia where used to produce different (additional) puzzle piece types of the two brick' shaped puzzle pieces, which would have to be constrained to defined positions.

Figures 7a and Th show two different views of a dual-facet wall' shaped puzzle using five dual-facet full-sized brick' shaped puzzle pieces (710, 720, 740, 760 & 770, figure 7d) and two dual-facet half-sized brick' shaped puzzle pieces (730 & 750, figure 7c). The IAA has allocated the indicia so that there is an unique relative position of the puzzle pieces to yield the target'. As per Figure 6a the puzzle requires a mixture of piece-to-piece and piece-to-multi-piece matching of indicia. Of particular interest is that the matching of indicia requires both front-to-front and rear-to-rear matching to correctly form the required target'. The number of possible positional and rotational permutations that may have to be considered is 5!.(2.2)5x 2!.(2.2)2 =3,932,160 (which should be compared with 5t.25x 2!.22=30,720 if a single-facet puzzle piece type was used).

Figures 8a-8d shows different views (as the puzzle is rotated by 90°) of a further embodiment in which three different multi-facet puzzle piece types are used to form a Square base Pyramid' (of height=3) shaped puzzle. Piece 810 is a five-facet Square base Pyramid (a Pentahedron, figure 8e). Pieces 820, 825, 830, 835, 840, 850, 860 and 870 are a six-facet Right-angled Block' (a Hexahedron, figure 8f). Pieces 845, 855, 865 and 875 are a six-facet Slanted Block' (a Hexahedron, figure 8g). Of significant note is that the two six-facet puzzle piece types are asymmetric and different indicia ascribed per edge. The puzzle requires the sole use of piece-to-multi-piece matching of indicia.

Claims

A puzzle game, consisting of two or more moveable regular or irregular polygon based puzzle pieces (tiles), utilising two or more different puzzle piece types, each puzzle piece type having a single facet having three or more edges and each edge ascribed with one or more indicia, such that when said puzzle pieces are placed in an unique relative positional and rotational configuration, so that adjacent indicia of two or more different puzzle pieces match and that the different puzzle piece types are correctly located in defined positions, a required two-dimensional configuration/pattern (the target') is achieved.
2. A puzzle game, consisting of two or more moveable regular or irregular polyhedra based puzzle pieces, utilising two or more different puzzle piece types, each puzzle piece type having two or more facets having three or more edges and each edge ascribed with one or more indicia, such that when said puzzle pieces are placed in an unique relative positional and rotational configuration, so that adjacent indicia on the front and rear viewable facets of two or more different puzzle pieces match and that the different puzzle piece types are correctly located in defmed positions, a required configuration/pattern (the target') is achieved.
3. A puzzle game, consisting of two or more moveable regular or irregular polyhedra based puzzle pieces, utilising two or more different puzzle piece types, each puzzle piece type having two or more facets having three or more edges, with each facet ascribed with a centrally located indicia and each edge ascribed with one or more indicia, such that when said puzzle pieces are placed, using only the facets of puzzle piece's with a matching centrally located indicia, in an unique relative positional and rotational configuration, so that adjacent indicia of two or more different puzzle pieces match and that the different puzzle piece types are correctly located in defined positions, two or more different conuigurations/patterns (targets') can be achieved, the selection of which target' is required is chosen by means of a random process.
4. A puzzle game, consisting of two or more moveable regular or irregular polyhedra based puzzle pieces, utilising two or more different puzzle piece types, each puzzle piece type having two or more symmetric or asymmetric facets having three or more edges and each edge ascribed with one or more indicia, such that when said puzzle pieces are placed in an unique relative positional and rotational configuration, so that adjacent indicia of two or more different puzzle pieces match in three-dimensions and that the different puzzle piece types are correctly located in defined positions, a required three-dimensional regular or irregular polyhedra (the target') is achieved.
5. A puzzle game as outlined in claims 2 and 4 in that there is a means of support or inter-connection of the puzzle pieces allowing said puzzle pieces to be positioned vertically, aiding the viewing of the viewable front and rear facets of each puzzle piece.
6. A puzzle game as outlined in claims I to 4 in which the indicia ascribed on each puzzle piece's edge and any indicia ascribed in a centrally located position on a puzzle piece's facet are implemented as an alphanumeric character, a solid or broken colour, a pattern consisting of two or more colours, a pattern of raised dots suitable for blind or partially sighted puzzlers, a pattern consisting of one or more shapes or symbols or combinations of the aforementioned.
7. A puzzle game as outlined in claims I to 4 in which the total number of puzzle pieces matches or exceeds the number of puzzle pieces required in solving the puzzle (target').
8. A puzzle game as outlined in claims I to 4 in which one or more of the puzzle pieces have a fixed position and orientation.
9. A puzzle game as outlined in claims 1 to 4 in which one or more moveable puzzle pieces, identified with a centrally ascribed indicia on one or more facets, has to be positioned in a specified position and/or orientation.
10. A puzzle game, as outlined in the preceding claims, in which by the addition of a passive or electronic means, to each of the puzzle piece facets, allows the unique identification of a particular puzzle piece, it's position in the puzzle and it's orientation so that feedback to the puzzler can be provided, indicating that the puzzle has been solved or to supply continuous or upon request hints to the puzzler.
11. A puzzle game, as outlined in the preceding claims, in which the puzzle game is implemented in software and/or fixed or programmable logic so that the puzzle game can be played either on a personnel computer, a games console, a hand-held dedicated gaming device or a mobile communications device.