Bejeweled, Candy Crush and other Match-Three Games are (NP-)Hard

The twentieth century has seen the rise of a new type of video games targeted at a mass audience of "casual" gamers. Many of these games require the player to swap items in order to form matches of three and are collectively known as \emph{tile-matching match-three games}. Among these, the most influential one is arguably \emph{Bejeweled} in which the matched items (gems) pop and the above gems fall in their place. Bejeweled has been ported to many different platforms and influenced an incredible number of similar games. Very recently one of them, named \emph{Candy Crush Saga} enjoyed a huge popularity and quickly went viral on social networks. We generalize this kind of games by only parameterizing the size of the board, while all the other elements (such as the rules or the number of gems) remain unchanged. Then, we prove that answering many natural questions regarding such games is actually \NP-Hard. These questions include determining if the player can reach a certain score, play for a certain number of turns, and others. We also \href{http://candycrush.isnphard.com}{provide} a playable web-based implementation of our reduction.Comment: 21 pages, 12 figure

Candy Crush is NP-hard

We prove that playing Candy Crush to achieve a given score in a fixed number of swaps is NP-hard

Trainyard is NP-Hard

Recently, due to the widespread diffusion of smart-phones, mobile puzzle games have experienced a huge increase in their popularity. A successful puzzle has to be both captivating and challenging, and it has been suggested that this features are somehow related to their computational complexity \cite{Eppstein}. Indeed, many puzzle games --such as Mah-Jongg, Sokoban, Candy Crush, and 2048, to name a few-- are known to be NP-hard \cite{CondonFLS97, culberson1999sokoban, GualaLN14, Mehta14a}. In this paper we consider Trainyard: a popular mobile puzzle game whose goal is to get colored trains from their initial stations to suitable destination stations. We prove that the problem of determining whether there exists a solution to a given Trainyard level is NP-hard. We also \href{http://trainyard.isnphard.com}{provide} an implementation of our hardness reduction

NP-completeness of the game Kingdomino

Kingdomino is a board game designed by Bruno Cathala and edited by Blue Orange since 2016. The goal is to place $2 \times 1$ dominoes on a grid layout, and get a better score than other players. Each $1 \times 1$ domino cell has a color that must match at least one adjacent cell, and an integer number of crowns (possibly none) used to compute the score. We prove that even with full knowledge of the future of the game, in order to maximize their score at Kingdomino, players are faced with an NP-complete optimization problem

Push-Pull Block Puzzles are Hard

This paper proves that push-pull block puzzles in 3D are PSPACE-complete to solve, and push-pull block puzzles in 2D with thin walls are NP-hard to solve, settling an open question by Zubaran and Ritt. Push-pull block puzzles are a type of recreational motion planning problem, similar to Sokoban, that involve moving a `robot' on a square grid with $1 \times 1$ obstacles. The obstacles cannot be traversed by the robot, but some can be pushed and pulled by the robot into adjacent squares. Thin walls prevent movement between two adjacent squares. This work follows in a long line of algorithms and complexity work on similar problems. The 2D push-pull block puzzle shows up in the video games Pukoban as well as The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, giving another proof of hardness for the latter. This variant of block-pushing puzzles is of particular interest because of its connections to reversibility, since any action (e.g., push or pull) can be inverted by another valid action (e.g., pull or push).Comment: Full version of CIAC 2017 paper. 17 page

On the Complexity of Two Dots for Narrow Boards and Few Colors

Two Dots is a popular single-player puzzle video game for iOS and Android. A level of this game consists of a grid of colored dots. The player connects two or more adjacent dots, removing them from the grid and causing the remaining dots to fall, as if influenced by gravity. One special move, which is frequently a game-changer, consists of connecting a cycle of dots: this removes all the dots of the given color from the grid. The goal is to remove a certain number of dots of each color using a limited number of moves. The computational complexity of Two Dots has already been addressed in [Misra, FUN 2016], where it has been shown that the general version of the problem is NP-complete. Unfortunately, the known reductions produce Two Dots levels having both a large number of colors and many columns. This does not completely match the spirit of the game, where, on the one hand, only few colors are allowed, and on the other hand, the grid of the game has only a constant number of columns. In this paper, we partially fill this gap by assessing the computational complexity of Two Dots instances having a small number of colors or columns. More precisely, we show that Two Dots is hard even for instances involving only 3 colors or 2 columns. As a contrast, we also prove that the problem can be solved in polynomial-time on single-column instances with a constant number of goals

Tracks from hell - when finding a proof may be easier than checking it

We consider the popular smartphone game Trainyard: a puzzle game that requires the player to lay down tracks in order to route colored trains from departure stations to suitable arrival stations. While it is already known [Almanza et al., FUN 2016] that the problem of finding a solution to a given Trainyard instance (i.e., game level) is NP-hard, determining the computational complexity of checking whether a candidate solution (i.e., a track layout) solves the level was left as an open problem. In this paper we prove that this verification problem is PSPACE-complete, thus implying that Trainyard players might not only have a hard time finding solutions to a given level, but they might even be unable to efficiently recognize them

The Computational Complexity of Angry Birds

The physics-based simulation game Angry Birds has been heavily researched by the AI community over the past five years, and has been the subject of a popular AI competition that is currently held annually as part of a leading AI conference. Developing intelligent agents that can play this game effectively has been an incredibly complex and challenging problem for traditional AI techniques to solve, even though the game is simple enough that any human player could learn and master it within a short time. In this paper we analyse how hard the problem really is, presenting several proofs for the computational complexity of Angry Birds. By using a combination of several gadgets within this game's environment, we are able to demonstrate that the decision problem of solving general levels for different versions of Angry Birds is either NP-hard, PSPACE-hard, PSPACE-complete or EXPTIME-hard. Proof of NP-hardness is by reduction from 3-SAT, whilst proof of PSPACE-hardness is by reduction from True Quantified Boolean Formula (TQBF). Proof of EXPTIME-hardness is by reduction from G2, a known EXPTIME-complete problem similar to that used for many previous games such as Chess, Go and Checkers. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that a single-player game has been proven EXPTIME-hard. This is achieved by using stochastic game engine dynamics to effectively model the real world, or in our case the physics simulator, as the opponent against which we are playing. These proofs can also be extended to other physics-based games with similar mechanics.Comment: 55 Pages, 39 Figure