I tend to map puzzle games into categories: logic‑based, pattern‑recognition, spatial‑rearrangement, and procedural‑generation. Classic examples that fit neatly into those boxes are Minesweeper, the 15‑Puzzle, Sudoku, and Sokoban. I find Minesweeper fascinating because its algorithmic generation mirrors binary tree traversal, while the 15‑Puzzle offers a linear sequence of state transitions that illustrate group theory in a tangible way. Sudoku is a perfect study of constraint propagation, and Sokoban provides a clear demonstration of combinatorial explosion. If you enjoy The Witness, you might appreciate the structural elegance of these older titles.

Sounds like a good plan. First, catalog the obstacles: what’s the initial state, what are the constraints, and what does the end state look like? Then, list the rules governing each puzzle element—like how a line can only move when the adjacent square is empty. After that, we’ll run a small simulation in our head, step by step, to see which moves lead to progress. That’s the only way to avoid wasted effort and get that “happy dance” in the most efficient order. Good luck.

Sounds solid. Just keep a running list of each move and its effect on the board, then backtrack only when you hit a dead‑end. That way you’ll never waste a step and the happy dance will be the reward, not a cleanup. Good luck.