The most literal way to learn from a strong board: rebuild it exactly, piece for piece, until your search can reproduce it. What the reconstruction forces you to add is the ingredient your search was missing, and the reproduction is the proof.
Corpus priors and anti-pattern mining learn a statistic from many boards. This
technique learns from a single board, and it learns the hardest thing to see
from a distance: the one move an ordinary search cannot make. The method is
brutally literal. Take a known record board, and try to make your own search
rebuild it exactly, piece for piece. Whatever you have to add to your search
before it can walk that path is precisely the ingredient it was missing, and the
exact reconstruction is the proof that the ingredient is real.
The setup is a depth-first search run in a deliberately constrained mode, aimed at
a specific witness board rather than searching freely:
Prior-over-cost ordering. An ordinary break-tolerant backtracker ranks
candidate placements by immediate mismatch cost, cheapest first. A replay flips
the priority so that the placements the witness board actually used outrank
cheaper-looking ones. The search is pulled down the known good path instead of
wandering off it.
An exact tail. The last handful of cells are solved exactly rather than
heuristically, so the endgame an ordinary run fumbles is closed deterministically.
The relaxation under test. With the ordering and the tail fixed, you vary the
one rule you suspect is the barrier, and watch for the moment the witness rebuilds.
This is the REPLAY
experiment, and what it found on the community's strict-460 boards is a clean
example of the payoff. The project's own break-tolerant search had saturated at
457 or 458 no matter what, and the reason turned out to be a single rule nobody had
questioned: it allowed at most one mismatched edge per cell. The record boards
each contain four or five cells that pay two mismatches at once. A search capped
at one break per cell literally cannot represent those boards, so it was fenced off
from the very targets it was chasing.
▶Interactive: the double-break cellsExplore →
Loading…
▶Interactive: replay the break scheduleExplore →
Find the double-break cells on a real board
Pick a record board. We score it live, find every mismatched edge, and flag the cells that carry two mismatches at once. A solver that allows at most one break per cell — almost every solver — literally cannot place these cells, so it stalls a few points below. That is the move REPLAY had to add to walk the community's boards exactly.
463 / 480
24 broken cells
9 double-break cells
double-break cell (two mismatches)the rest of the board is perfectly matched
The double-break cells are computed here from the board's own edges (the same matched-edge rule the engine and the Bucas leaderboard use) — not hand-placed. Open the board in the viewer to inspect every edge. On the community's strict-460 boards there are 4–5 such cells; REPLAY's prior-over-cost ordering plus a cost-2 break operator is what makes them reachable.
Raise the per-cell budget from one to two, and both community strict-460 witnesses
rebuild exactly, every piece in place, the score checking out edge by edge. The
reconstruction is the finding: a search-completeness result dressed as a record
attempt. The wall was in the move set, not the compute.
Decoding a record is the sharpest diagnostic in this family, because it turns a
vague suspicion ("our search is missing something") into a specific, checkable
claim ("it cannot pay two breaks at one cell"). It is also the most candid about
its limits, and in the same breath. Recovering the double break lifts the strict
ladder to 460, but it does not, by itself, say whether two breaks per cell open a
path to 461 and beyond or merely to the known 460s. Decoding tells you the
ingredient a witness used; it does not promise that ingredient carries any further
than the witness did. That gap, a learned move that reaches the plateau without
proving anything past it, is the theme of the
collapse page.