Hi! —

**In terms of splitting boards / splitting this board —**

Yeah, I would have just created one board and worked off of that — I just tried this game on my own, and that’s how I solved it — and even though I missed a pretty big inference ( exactly 1 F,F pairing) I still had no trouble w/the problems and they went fairly quickly.

Again, this is not to say that Danny’s method isn’t a great one — it’s very clever, and would have certainly made it easier and faster to go through the q’s — however, in general, I do recommend splitting boards less often than most other instructors do. But it’s a gray area, and it’s an issue I constantly think about, so it’s definitely something you want to try out a variety of ways to see what works best for you —

The basic rule of thumb that I suggest is to split boards when you see that all of the possibilities for a game can be cleanly split into a few different groupings, and you see that splitting boards in this way has an impact on how you manage the other given rules.

The simplest example I can think of is something like this combination (imagine we know each appears exactly once):

N is either first or last.

R is two spots away from N.

The first of the rules splits up all the possibilities for a game into two neat categories, and it happens to so in a way that allows us to more easily notate and control the second rule.

Another very common example is the biconditional, which Danny brought up initially — especially if you have a biconditional w/ 3 components — something like —

“J is after M if and only if J is before K.”

There are two ways this rule can play out — either you have

M – J – K or K – J – M, and no matter the game, it’s certain that knowing that order of elements, and using it as the focal point of two different diagrams, will make it markedly easier for you to control the other rules and answer the q’s.

So, my recommendation is to start from there in terms of deciding when to split boards (also, you may to review Lesson 14 again, which deals w/some of this stuff) — and then, as you get more and more comfortable, try out splitting boards more and more and see what works best for you —

**In terms of drawing new diagrams —**

I can’t remember quite where I mentioned what you are referencing, but I have a feeling it either had to do with a certain question type or having to constantly have to draw new diagrams or hypos to assess each of the answer choices within a problem (an example would be something like an unconditional could be true q — most of the time you run into one, if you have set up the game properly, you should be able to use your setup to see why most of the wrong choices must be false — if you can’t, and have to “test out” each answer, that could be a sign of trouble) —

But more importantly, please know there is nothing wrong with drawing new diagrams next to problems when you need to, and in fact you should end up doing it a ton the time — for this game, I personally drew new ones next to each q except #2 —

To me, without making the frames off the conditional upfront, this game doesn’t yield many upfront inferences (or at least I didn’t see them), and so it’s what I characterize in the book as a backend game — it gives us a fairly simple situation, fairly simple rules, and not a lot of inferences to uncover upfront, and the work is going to be done on the backend — at the point of the q’s —

And, you’ll notice that 4 of the 5 problems are conditional ones — meaning they give you a new bit of information that, when combined with what you initially know about a game, sets of a chain of inferences that allows you to get to the right answer.

So, I spent very little time on the setup of the game, and instead solved the problems based on going down a chain of inferences when the q’s asked me to (and in much the same way as I document in the LG solutions in the trainer) —

That’s it — you ask some interesting and broad q’s, and I feel like I can’t give full responses without writing a tome back, so I have to be pretty general, but I hope that helps a bit, and if you have any follow up or want me to flesh anything out just let me know — mk