This Matchstick Puzzle Is "Extremely Hard" For Adults
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 07. 2016
- This classic matchstick/toothpick puzzle is making the rounds because it is supposedly "extremely hard" for adults. Can you make 3 squares by moving 3 matchsticks? You cannot break any of the sticks, the resulting squares must be of equal size, and each toothpick has to be part of a square (and no other tricks are allowed either!) Can you figure it out? Watch the video for a solution.
Blog post
wp.me/p6aMk-4Jd
Source "extremely hard"
www.quora.com/Puzzles-and-Tri...
Via
www.thesun.co.uk/uncategorize...
If you like my videos, you can support me at Patreon: / mindyourdecisions
Connect on social media. I update each site when I have a new video or blog post, so you can follow me on whichever method is most convenient for you.
My Blog: mindyourdecisions.com/blog/
Twitter: / preshtalwalkar
Facebook: / 168446714965
Google+: plus.google.com/1083366085665...
Pinterest: / preshtalwalkar
Tumblr: / preshtalwalkar
Instagram: / preshtalwalkar
Patreon: / mindyourdecisions
Newsletter (sent about 2 times a year): eepurl.com/KvS0r
My Books
"The Joy of Game Theory" shows how you can use math to out-think your competition. (rated 4/5 stars on 23 reviews) www.amazon.com/gp/product/150...
"The Irrationality Illusion: How To Make Smart Decisions And Overcome Bias" is a handbook that explains the many ways we are biased about decision-making and offers techniques to make smart decisions. (rated 5/5 stars on 1 review) www.amazon.com/gp/product/152...
"Math Puzzles Volume 1" features classic brain teasers and riddles with complete solutions for problems in counting, geometry, probability, and game theory. Volume 1 is rated 4.5/5 stars on 11 reviews. www.amazon.com/gp/product/151...
"Math Puzzles Volume 2" is a sequel book with more great problems. www.amazon.com/gp/product/151...
"Math Puzzles Volume 3" is the third in the series. www.amazon.com/gp/product/151...
"40 Paradoxes in Logic, Probability, and Game Theory" contains thought-provoking and counter-intuitive results. (rated 4.9/5 stars on 7 reviews) www.amazon.com/gp/product/151...
"The Best Mental Math Tricks" teaches how you can look like a math genius by solving problems in your head (rated 4.7/5 stars on 3 reviews) www.amazon.com/gp/product/150...
"Multiply Numbers By Drawing Lines" This book is a reference guide for my video that has over 1 million views on a geometric method to multiply numbers. (rated 5/5 stars on 1 review) www.amazon.com/gp/product/150... - Věda a technologie
So what I was missing from the video was a good explanation on how to come to a solution without any guesswork. I counted the matches and realised that the only way to make 3 squares out of 12 matches is if they don't have any mutual sides with another square. From there it was quite simple to find the 2 existing squares and make up the 3rd one...
Best way here is to count the matches. There are 12.
So it's a good chance you need to end up with 3 squares of side length 1 each without any shared sides.
5 seconds later you have the solution.
That's about how long it took me to solve this problem without counting the matches.
Yup. Figure out what you need to end up with, then how to get there.
Robin Koch good point
+Robin Koch That is a fantastic comment; thx for sharing, srsly.
This is exactly what I did. Well done.
"The only difficult part is selecting which sticks to move."
Wrong, you first have to decide if the sticks are really there at all....
@@bikebudha01 get yo philospher ass outta here this is math class
I looked at the rules, realized there was nothing against stacking the sticks, so I took two stick that form the upper right square and stacked them on random other sticks for the the first two moves. The third move was just moving one of the stacked sticks to be on top of a different stick. It technically satisfies all requirements since the stacked sticks are still part of a square, it's just that that side happens to be identified by two stacked sticks instead of a single stick.
"Did you figure it out?"
Finally, at long last, I can say yes to one of these
I’m the opposite, this is the first one I didn’t figure out lol
There's no rule about overlapping the matches...
So in theory, you could just move two of the corner matches and overlap them with other matches, and then move one of the overlapped matches on top of another one (making 3 moves)
Example:
_ _
l_l_l
l_l_l
You are technically correct, the best kind of correct.
That was my solution as well. It's a "trivial" solution, but the super-simple wording of the problem allows for it.
That's the first thing that I thought of too.
It was logical to assume that people were smart enough to know that would be stupid.
Chandler Gloyd
"Trivial", not "stupid"....he was careful to state the rules VERY precisely in a way which allowed for that solution, which makes it perfectly valid.
It already matches the requirements. No sticks are broken, There are three squares of equal size and each stick is part of a square. So my solution is to pick a stick, move it twice, and move it back to it's original position.
there are 4 and there is an bigger one
then you have four squares again. Do you mean that since there are 4 of them, there are also three, or two or one?
Art Lover Yes.
+Huntracony well, nice thought...! ;)
Jaromy Van Der Sluis True.
Apparently everybody in the comments is extremely intelligent and must tell it.
I agree
That is the purpose of the comment section.
Except you who are modest it seems 😁
Or cannot listen nor read and must demonstrate this with a "creative" solution.
FOR REAL
This one actually took me a while, especially when I was told that every stick must be part of a square. I did eventually get it, though.
My solution was, to simply lay two corner-sticks on top of any other stick. One of those I move again, so I use up the three moves. I end up with exactly three squares of the same size, non of the sticks are broken and every stick is part of a square. It is never stated that you cant use two sticks to form the same side of a square.
I feel kinda dumb for not finding the real awnser though, but I have wasted a lot of time in the past on puzzles with only some dumb "cheat awnser", that now I always just cheat :D
That was my immediate answer as well. Quick and easy. Nothing in the rules mentioned there couldn’t be more than 1 stick on a side or that the squares couldn’t share sides.
Simple. All you need to do is pick two sticks that form an outer corner of the large square, and place those on top of any other sticks. Then, without disturbing anything else, just rotate any stick by 180 degrees. The result would be an "L" shape consisting of three equal squares, made in three moves, with no sticks broken, and every stick is part of a square.
not a fan of the spam-ad level bait titles. i'm this close to unsubscribing because of them
Why would you unsubscribe because of his titles? If you like the content of the video Subscribe to him. If you dislike the content of the video Don't subscribe?? The title doesn't matter at all, the content is what matters
+Ludvig SC Games becayse you get your hopes up and then its some little elementary school puzzle type shit
GalacticSlayer Then you are unsubscribing because of the content
How the fuck is this a bait title?
Well if you are unsubscribing because the content doesn't fit the title or because the title doesn't fit the content is pretty much the same.
Just move three sticks in random places until you're left with three squares
bogo sort be like
The only difficult part was the rules being unclear.
Could there be more than 3 squares as long as only 3 were of the same size?
Overlapping?
Does being a diagonal of a square count as being a part of it?
I was thinking a “move” would be restricted to pivoting a match leaving one end in place. Glad I watched the video to clarify the rules.
As it was said to be "extremely hard", I started to think about all
sorts of weird 3d things and such. Until I eventually figured out how
easy it is... I thinks this might be a good life lesson; if the think
something is hard we make it hard.
I liked it better when you posted high level thoughtful math content.
Me too
Checking it out right now. :)
Edit: I like it!
+Sen Zen nice channel. subscribed!
+Sen Zen That's only true if each matchstick must form exactly one whole edge, which is not one of the requirements. I just posted a solution that makes use of that fact. Still, your point is a good one - I wish he would have made it more about the math than about the puzzle.
I solved it !
Just Took out two,add one,solved!
@@nobodyknows1106 what do u mean by that, r u talking about different answer?
@@twixgaming8077 if it is,yes
Not an adult
Me too
Eh, you could have explained the rules more clearly, I didn't understand what moves were illegal/legal. For instantaneously, when you said you couldn't break the matchsticks, I didn't understand what you meant by that, and I didn't know if rotation, or diagonal matchstick placement was acceptable. I didn't know that moving the matchstick down, and then across also, constituted only 1 move instead of two, because of the lack of clarity over diagonal moves.
The rules are crystal clear. You can't break a stick. Can't be much clearer than that. Also, it doesn't matter if you move a stick left/right/down, or just pick it up and move it. He said move 3 sticks. He moved 3 sticks. And you can place a stick diagonally, he didn't say you couldn't, but that doesn't solve anything.
Pick a outside corner, place both sticks attached to that corner on top of two different stick attached to the middle. Place one of one of the double sticks on top of another stick. There are now three squares and all sticks are part of a square.
Start
_ _
|_|_|
|_|_|
Turn 1
_ _
|_|_|
| ||_|
Turn 2
_ _
|_||_|
||_|
Turn 3
_ _
||_|_|
||_|
Final Shape:
_ _
|1|2|
|3|
"Spirit of the rules" is nonsense and does not exist. All cheese is valid. The burden is on the one designing a challenge to design rules to prevent cheese.
Ugh finally one of these I could solve with ease.
First, I wanted to suss out if it was a trick question, so I made two drawing - one of 3 squares where they shared as many sides as possible, and one where they shared no sides. The first involved 10 sticks, and the second involved 12, so I figured that if the original puzzle didn't have 10-12 sticks, then there was going to be some trick. Lo and behold, there were 12 sticks, which made the solution obvious - none of the squares could share a side.
So okay, they can't share a side, but I figured they could share a corner, so once you pick two of the existing squares the keep intact that _don't_ share a side, that leaves 4 free-standing sticks. Leave any 1 of the 4 be, use the remaining 3 to turn it into a square, and you've got your answer. Easy.
Altogether it couldn't have taken more than two minutes to solve.
I figured this out on my own after physically using matchsticks. I’m usually garbage at these lol.
I forgot to mention that it is not difficult to select the first stick to move because you can solve the puzzle with equal difficulty by starting with any of the 12 sticks. The difficulty comes with deciding where to place it. When you recognize the symmetry of the puzzle, and decide which of the last 4 remains, I think it's easier to pick up the last 3, then it's obvious where they go.
Another alternate way to solve it is after you've decided which two squares to remain, there are 4 shared corners from which to build the new square. Pick any one. Leave the sticks connected to it and build the last square from there. Done!
Since 12 sticks ÷ 3 squares = 4 sides, each square must not share a side or you will have extra sticks. You have too few moves to end up with completely separate squares. Therefore, squares must be joined at the corners. Of the 4 squares you start with, decide which two you want to leave untouched; either upper right and lower left or upper left and lower right. Of the 4 sticks left pick any one to leave and pick up the last 3 and make a square with it. Done! There are 8 ways to solve the puzzle but due to symetry, they reduce down to only one.
my god... the solution was so freaking simple. It took me a solid 20 minutes to figure out
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Yeah maybe I should've spent more than 2 minutes looking at the video...
can we have challenging puzzles again please?
I agree. Though I liked this puzzle, I liked the ones that either are a bit more difficult, take a little more thought, or, most of all, teach an important point.
I just moved corner sticks onto other sticks, then one of them again. Now there are 3 touching triangles with some sides made of 2 stick wall. Done-zo
Well, you need three squares, and you have twelve sticks which is enough to make three separate squares. So I suppose if you trying too move as few as possible the squares will have to be joined bu corners. so if you take two sticks away for one corner to move, you have 3 squares still, but if you take a stick away from the corner you two squares touching by corner, three sticks to move, and one stick that hasn't moved but isnt part of a square. Just take the three sticks you can move and put the down around the lone stick that hasnt moved in a way that only makes one square.
Also I remember the pirate on crash box bringing up a riddle like this when I was a kid. So that helps.
since the problem is poorly defined, you could just toss 2 corner sticks and be left with 3 squares. thus "re-moving" 2 sticks. nothing in the rules prevent it.
You can also reason that if the perimeter of the 3 squares is 3x4=12 and you have 12 sticks in total then it follows that the 3 squares can only touch in the corners so you reach one of the 2 solutions and just select the sticks to move from the original configuration.
I was so happy when I solved it, but then I realized I'm only 16.
My son is an advanced 10 year old in the gifted program at his school, I'm so excited to have found your channel. I want him to watch all the videos!
Never said you can't overlap sticks. So take bottom two on the right. Place them both on top and parallel to one of any stick. Rotate them all and keep in same place as your third move. voila. now its 3
I just counted the matches and thought of different ways to make 3 squares with 12 matches. Obviously you would make 3 squares with 4 matches but they can't have walls touching otherwise it reduces the match count. With 3 three moves that meant only 9 of the original match placements would be left, making two squares with an extra. Because they can touch walls, the squares from the original placement had to be diagonal and then you can take any three matches and make a new square on the outside of the remaining match. I'm 15 btw.
You never said that you can't move a stick to overlap with another stick so I believe this is a valid solution. Let's label the outside sticks clockwise from 1 to 8, with stick 1 being the top left horizontal stick and stick 8 being the top left vertical stick. Move stick 2 to 1, stick 3 to 1, and stick 1 to 8. You have three squares, no matchsticks were broken, each square has equal size, and every stick is part of a square.
Thanks
I didn't see it at first, and thought of how math can be applied to help find a solution.
I really don't even want to write an expression, and just plainly say: With geometry, we see that 12 sticks are making 4 squares, each with 4 sides, for a total of 16 sides. 12 sticks are equalling the 16 sides, because some sticks are acting as 2 sides. They are adjacent. For there to be 3 squares, that is 12 sides, how many sides must each of the 12 sticks represent?
"No adjacency. One to one correspondence."
Correct. Therefore is it possible to move 3 sticks in this diagram. and have no stick represent more than one side? That is, is it possible in 3 moves to make 3 non-adjacent squares? And if so, how?
"It certainly helps me to find a solution, and I guess it's math because it's geometry. Also, I like that we didn't use equations. Non-algebraic geometry is cool."
Does it have to be in 3 moves, not 2?
What we;re going to use is a *ghost* matchstick, see here...
Lol...
There's no rule about yeeting two of the matchsticks to outerspace.
Why stop at outer space? Yeet two match sticks to Uranus.
Took me a while, but take the two upper-rightmost sticks, place one horizontally at the left of the left-center horizontal stick, and the other horizontally at the left of the bottom-left horizontal stick. Then take what was originally the bottom-left horizontal stick, and place it vertically connecting the open ends of the two sticks you just moved.
Thank you for smart solution.
Take the two outside sticks from the top left square and place them on the right edge of the bottom right square so you have three sides of a square. Then take the bottom stick from the bottom right square and complete the square you made with the other two. There are 12 matchsticks, so it is possible to move three of the sticks to form their own square, and eliminate one square when you do so.
Which editing app did you use for it plzzzz reply
These kinds of videos are exactly why I don't exercise a growth mindset.
the way I look at this puzzle is to consider the total number of matchsticks(12) and the number of matchsticks needed for 3 squares with no overlap (also 12). Since they are equal, there must not be any overlap. if we consider this, the answer becomes clear
If you allow moving a stick multiple times, move any stick anywhere, replace it with any other stick, and fill in the gap with the first stick.
It might be illegal but the problem didn't say that sticks couldn't be overlapped so I used that..
Presh, it would have been a good opportunity to actually talk about how to solve geometric matchstick puzzles, something I find few people know (apart from "experiment until you stumble across the solution").
In this case, if you count the number of matches, you find there are 12. Since we're aiming at 3 squares, then the only way to do this is for every match to be one side of one square - therefore we need to spread the squares out as much as possible. The solution quickly follow given this restriction. Many matchstick puzzles can be quickly solved this way.
I made my own post before I saw yours, but I agree with both points. That is how I reasoned the answer (I don't recall ever generalizing this though). Also, it was a missed opportunity not to discuss the reasoning. That is what used to make these videos worthwhile. There has been a considerable "dumbing down" in recent weeks. I don't mind the occasional easier puzzle, but the reduction of teaching or demonstrating principles really diminishes the channel, I think. If I first got here with the fare of the last few weeks, I never would have stayed.
Albert Einstein that I am, I picked up one match & lit it, then used it to burn 2 other sticks & replaced it in its original position. I was feeling all smug & intelligent that it was so easy for someone of my intelligence, & unpaused the clip expecting a mere formality. I would say LoL except I was being serious so it wasn't that funny at the time.
There was no explanation on the method to solve. But there is a logical way to figure this out...
We have 12 sticks so the ONLY way to have 3 squares out of that is if each square has no side in common with any other square (otherwise we will not use all 12 sticks).
This immediately limits the results to be diagonally connected squares.
Already, we have 2 diagonally connected squares, so all we have to do is form a 3rd.
Next, we can only move 3 sticks, so the position of the newly formed MUST share a side in common with a currently existing square.
This limits the result to be as shown in the video.
I didn't see it straight away so that is why I used this methodical approach. The benefit of this way of thinking about it, is you don't rely on the happy chance of spotting the solution out of pure luck.
With this sort of puzzle, there are always apparent implied conditions, and no good way to know which conditions are to be interpreted as "Ha! You assumed that but I never said so" and which are to be interpreted as "C'mon, you *know* what I meant".
Of course Presh makes an effort to clarify it. Not suggesting otherwise. But as can be seen in the comments, there's plenty of wiggle room left. There is, of course, a non-trick solution.
That took me wayyyyy too long for such a simple answer. I finally figured it out when I counted the sticks, found that there were 12 there, and realized that 12 = 3*4, or 3 times the number of sides on a square.
My mistake was thinking the matches were supposed to be removed, not simply placed in new positions.
Same
I have another puzzle,
Arrange "was never church did the door, church on from crawled when will" into a sentence.
I could make 3 squares with 1 move. Take out one of the 4 matches inside the square. That's it. That the other 3 matches will make 2 squares along with the outside 8 matches making the big square, the 3rd square.
EDIT: made the comment before watching the vid.
I figured out a different solution (removing 2 sticks and moving 1). First of all, we remove the 2 upper horizontal sticks. Then, we take the upper left vertical stick, and place it horizontally up in the right. And we have 3 squares of equal size.
Here's a more formal way of solving:
Count the number of matches. In this case 12.
The number of matches stays constant because you only move them and not remove them.
You need to make 3 squares. Since 3 squares require 12 matches at most, and we have 12 matches, this means that no two squares share a match.
Find two squares that don't share matches, keep them as part of your solution, then move the other matches to make your third (that also doesn't share matches with any of the two).
You could do it in two moves: There's no rule about diagonals inside of the squares, so just move two outside matches from a square and put them diagonally in two other squares
This is one of the few problems that I was able to solve on this channel!
The squares aren’t of equal size. the top one’s bottom matchstick is lower than the others (by exactly 1 matchstick width.) I know this because the bottom two square’s bottom matchsticks touch their left and right walls, whereas the top square’s bottom matchstick only touches it’s other matchsticks diagonally.
Clever. My solution: there are twelve matches. Three squares require a total of 3x4=12 sides. Therefore, all sides must be distinct, i.e. no shared sides. Therefore, squares can only be connected by vertices, not sides. Three moves does not allow for changing the size of the square (that was already a rule, so this was a wasted step). To minimize moves, preservation of existing squares must be maximized. This requires only using externally placed matches,. The no orphan matches rule, required both of the external matches of one square to be moved. Which square loses the two external matches determines the square that loses one more, as only the diagonally opposite square can be removed to leave the remaining two squares connected only by vertices. Either of this squares external matches may be removed. Once these three matches are removed, the only place they can be assembled to form a new square is on the remaining orphan match.
Takes much longer to write this than to think it.
If it is true that children solve this faster and with greater ease than adults, I will guess that the can solve it more intuitively as a geometric problem, rather than my deductive approach. I would be curious how others solved it.
" Three moves does not allow for changing the size of the square (that was already a rule, so this was a wasted step). " It's not a wasted step because the rule doesn't tell you the size of the squares in the solution. You have to rule out the possibility of three 2x2 squares (which you conclude because there aren't enough sticks to accomplish that).
This channel makes me feel clever
“Reframe” the problem: use twelve sticks to make three squares. That’s much easier to solve than the problem as originally
stated. It immediately becomes clear the sides of the squares can’t touch, only the end points. Arrange the squares endpoint to endpoint in various ways, and compare the arrangements individually to the original grid. The solution falls into place with a click like the combination to a safe.
Pointing out there are 12 matches hints too much at the answer though.
I took one stick, move it twice ending on top of another stick, took another stick and stacked it on another stick as well.
You never said I could not use the third dimension.
I can do it in 1 move. Any interior stick moved will do it.
Oh, I was trying to guess before watching, only saw the thumbnail which doesn't mention equal size.
I'd still argue 2, translate any outside corner diagonally inward until they overlap perfectly on an inner corner. They make a square with the opposite corner. The two adjacent corners are already in squares made up of exactly four, thus far unused matches.
There are 12 sticks total. 12/4=3, so I want to make 3 SEPARATE squares. Move the bottom match of the 2 matches on the very left 1 down and move both on the top right so that it makes a square where the bottom left match moved. 2easy
Wait. Can I take a stick away? If I can remove one, I can do the rest in two moves.
My first thought with this puzzle was to try and make the shape of a number 9, since 3 squared equals 9. lol. after a bit of thought though the proper solution seemed quite easy to work out to me
I had a different way in mind when i thought about it, and it works too.
Easy, he didn't say you couldn't throw sticks away, so chuck 2 and move one out of it's position and back again :) You have then moved 3 sticks and have 3 squares provided you chucked the right 2 sticks away
As there are 12 sticks they have to be connected at corners with no shared sides to make 3 squares. And thet cant be three diagonally since the third would have to be made witnh no pre existing sides which requires four sticks. This gives the shape you have to end with and then finding the 3 sticks to mpve is easy.
Remove a point then remove two lines that get intersected at that point.
If you are wondering why he said it's extremely hard for adults then look at the description for his source...
I solved it, move top left horizontal stick, over to the left
Move bottom right vertical so it touches the first stick you moved
Then move bottom right horizontal so it finishes that square
If you were to physically stack two exterior matches (the two forming one of the four corners) on top of any other matches, you could accomplish this in just two moves!
Was having trouble until I counted the number of sticks and realized that twelve sticks into three squares means that each of the squares must use its own sticks, with no shared sticks. From there, it was easy.
Well, there is a mosre obvious solution.
E.g. pick up only 2 sticks(and move 1 two times) and put both onto another stick(it is not prohibited). E.g. the left upper corener's 2 sticks. Practically the remaining 3 squares will remain there untouched so it is resolved.
Everytime he says: Hey! This is _______ Walker
I think it would have been better to hear if he says: Hey! This is Luke Skywalker or Hey! This is Anakin Skywalker.
Some times I think that he is claiming to be a non-fictional cousin of one of these characters.
I just counted the sticks, saw that no square must share a stick. Pretty obvious at that point.
Same trickk
"You might end up with the same shape upside down" is incomplete. You could end up with the three squares in offset vertical alignment as well, which would be a rotation of your solution. So the better wording is "You might end up with the same shape rotated."
I did it ❤️
We have to make 3 squares from 12 sticks
So we have to make 1x1 squares and no stick must be common to more than one squares
So the diagonal squares remains same and change two, one sticks of other diagonal squares to make 4 independent squares
❤️❤️❤️❤️
There are 12 sticks, so they can't be larger than unit squares or share any edges. With these restrictions, it's simple.
-it's difficult for adults to solve..
Me: solves in 7 seconds.
Nothing in the rules said one edge can't contain 2 sticks, so I stopped trying after a few seconds because that's extremely easy. Wish the rules had been more clear.
You can do it in one move. Remove 1 outside border stick destroying 1 square and leaving 3 squares. It never said that there should ONLY be three squares left.
But you have to use exactly 3 moves and each stick has to be a part of a square
I'd just move two of the sticks at the top corner and make them into a triangle, using the sides. Three squares, done and done.
I would have tried harder if the internet wasn't full of cheap trick moves. I just moved the sticks on top each other.
I came up with the same shape rotated 90 degrees. Though it took me some time to remember the solution (i have seen this problem, but it was around 16-17 years ago)
I see it now for the first time,
The solution is simple since the 3 squares required must have the same area and there are 12 matches. So the 3 squares will not have sides in common as all four of these starting.
Understood this, the rest is elementary ...
One used to have to use one's brain to solve this kind of puzzle! Now, Google and CZcams will do it for you!
*puts "for adults" in the title. every kid ever clicks
Also, you ought to have mentioned that there is not only a solution that is upside down, but also two more which are rotated 90 degrees.
I remembered this one from back when I was a kid.
I couldn't solve it at a glance in my head, so I grabbed some toothpicks and did it XD I also calculated that there were 8 solutions. Due to the rules of symmetry I expected there to be some multiple of 4 for possible solutions.
This is big brain I didn't figure out
Finally, not everyone in the world figured it out
I just moved a corner stick out of the way. Then I moved another corner stick out of the way. Then I moved that same stick even further out of the way
i took 2 sticks and made a cross in one and took a 3rd stick and lined it half way throught the 4th 1/4th square
Yes. I came up with that too. I think no rule is broken that way.
this comment is before i looked at the answer, but. Would it be considered MAKING a square if i removed a square's match and reversed the move? Would a match be considered part of a square if it completely overlapped a side? By breaking, do you mean breaking of a vertex inclusive-or a side? Make EXACTLY 3 or AT LEAST 3? I'd imagine at least to some "make" can simply mean "having" as opposed to "creating". my two cents
I just removed the top left and the top left vertical and ended up with three four squares so I only needed to remove two matches
I like these types of puzzles :)))))))
You could also allow sticks to overlap ! There is no rule saying they can't !