I wish I knew a neuroscientist so I could ask them about this effect.
 http://rudradevbasak.github.io/16384_hex/ with HN discussion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7437009 and my comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7443465
Really interesting effect
This seems to suggest that your brain has an intrinsic expectation of what the world should look like, either built in by evolution or from year of experiencing the world a certain way. I wonder what sorts of things are filtered from our perception because they don't correspond with the brain's expectation of reality.
I'm really surprised this works so well, it really shows how plastic and manipulable our brains are. This could become a reference example on perception or an analogy for higher level perception-shaping.
I appreciate a game like this: simple, but challenging and entertaining.
0h n0 seems to be just complex enough that sometimes you actually need to think about the problem. At least that is the case so far.
It requires a non-zero but pretty low level of "executive function", but significantly less than most logic puzzles.
In particular, a few times per game, I have to apply a little bit of "frontal-lobe" or higher-level skill to prevent myself from losing my patience for constantly applying the lower-level or "perceptual" skills required by 0hh1. In particular, I have to apply frontal-lobe skills to resist the temptation to engage in the "wishful thinking" of falsely believing I have perceived a correct next move to make.
(I engage in 0hh1.com mostly to relax or unwind, not to hone any higher-level skill.)
It seems 0h h1 has a slightly harder learning curve before the pattern recognition kicks in, while 0h n0 doesn't rely as much on pattern recognition, but is easier to learn.
There are no multiple solutions due to an unstated constraint that resolves ambiguities. I believe it is that a blue cannot be surrounded completely by reds.
Using the solver, I calculated that an empty 2x2 puzzle can be solved in 10 different ways, an empty 3x3 puzzle can be solved in 250 different ways, and an empty 4x4 puzzle can be solved in in 22946 different ways.
And your fun is over when you figure out the procedure, coz all you have to left is to get the input from whatever on the screen, feed it to the procedure and output the result to the mouse until u win.
One question is whether this holds for any possible board (starting position), or if they need to be constructed in a certain way for this to be true.
I think a game like 2048 will remain interesting longer, because you need to look further ahead and take the random factor into account.
Any reason why the Android App needs access to local storage? (0h h1 doesn't)
I've never quite liked Threes and 2048, or other games like it, as they either feelt too high paced or too intellectual to me.
Your two games on the other hand hit right at home with me, and I actually feel like I'm getting smarted. I'm sure it's placebo, but hey it feels like it helps so it's helping.
Anyway, thank you so much for the games!
25638 phone. I'm slightly saddened that 0hh1 only includes some of the possible deductions. I generally play 8x8 and I've not found a case where a RBR----R type of row requires a deduction about where the R can not be because it would match an existing row. These come up where you have three unknowns in a row, but I think never for four.
(This is like the Minesweeper flag option)
If you start adding any automated processing like that, then you're only a couple more processes away from the game just solving itself without you.
The elegance of this implementation is that you are doing all the solving. Unless you specifically ask for help from the hint button.
Regarding the hint button. I don't want to use it precisely because I don't want to "win" by repeatedly getting hints.
Here's an example illustration, from the top-left corner of a board:
y B R
x R _
_ _ _
If there's anything unfair about this approach, it's that the existence of a single solution is merely implied by puzzle conventions and not explicitly stated as a rule for 0h n0 here.
However there does appear to be another constraint that is not mentioned explicitly, which is that there are no blue circles that are not in line-of-sight with a numbered circle.
Any blue circle (or any linear group of them) that is not in line-of-sight with a numbered circle would have no constraint preventing it/them from being red instead. Therefore the solution wouldn't be unique, so such blue circles can't exist.
2 _ _ R
_ _ _ _
R _ _ _
Is the solution unique to each puzzle?
The style is similar to my game NoThree for Android (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ovaludi.no...).
Edit: 20 minutes later, and this is a big deal. I'm sure it's possible to enable the four arrow keys and enter key so we can use the arrow keys to navigate around the grid, and the enter key in lieu of the mouse left click. Other keys on the numeric pad could also be utilized, such as + for the "eye" hints.
Perhaps time is a distracting concept in that icon?
I think it's because Go is like the Lisp(or maybe just λ-calculus) of games - as my co-worker put it: remove any of the rules of go and you would no longer have a game.
though this implementation is a little gimped- rotating to the correct of the three possible states (on,off,nil) often requires two clicks, but a doubleclick is no good..
edit: just noticed you can enable timed game here, still liked minesweeper better :P