Minesweeper thermodynamics

I hacked up a version of minesweeper that was “forgiving:” if there was no selection that was provably safe, it gave you a safe move. If you picked any square that was not provably a bomb, it would not be a bomb. Typically, as long as you don’t select a number of bombs equal to the number of squares , your first move is safe. I just extended that for the whole game. If you select N-1 bombs, you always win on the first move..

> a version of minesweeper that was “forgiving:”

I think this diminishes the game. Sometimes you just don't have enough information to know for sure. Experiencing this in a low stakes situation like a minesweeper game reminds us that life is like that sometimes and we just have to make a guess and accept the consequences.

Yes, this really depends on what one's expectations are of a "game". Luck, as a component, is often contested. In case of the minesweeper, I'd argue there is either

A) No place for luck at all, either by making the game "forgiving", or generating a game that never has an ambiguous block, or

B) The game should make luck's presence more constant.

In case of Minesweeper, the most unfair event is when after a lot of pure skill-based play, the outcome ends up being luck based. As a game mechanic, this can work out to be challenging, or work as a surprise the first time, but it gets old pretty fast - because why bother putting in all that skill, just so be judged by luck in the end? And those who are thrilled by luck checks, will be turned away from the game because the exciting part comes last.

Because of this, I'd keep this logic game be about logic, or work luck into the game more deeply.

Solitaire is similar, with some of its starting positions being outright unwinnable. I'd just filter these out when creating a new game.