Intellectual Decathlon

Warning: don't bother to spend time with this game, if you are into shooting, arcade, or even simple adventure games. This is a "heavy duty" mind game, which can be played by one, but it is really designed for two players (although up to six can play it, but I don't recommend that). It may appear at first as a puzzle game, but it isn't.



The story:

I am not a computer programmer, but I was always interested in technology a lot. In 1981 I bought an Apple computer. I learned Applesoft Basic real fast and I started to write short programs, just for my own entertainment. Much as I liked games, I was missing some real thinking type game. Those were not popular. One day I was playing a game called Olympic Decathlon and I thought: "why not some intellectual decathlon?".
And I sat down and I wrote one. It took about three months, another three months to "get it in shape". I showed it to my friends, they liked it. One started to bug me that I should take it to a publisher. I didn't think the program was worthy for publishing, but I was wrong, he kept bugging me until I took it to Muse Software. They accepted it and they published it. As I later learned they also cheated me out from some significant amount of money, but I didn't care, I was very proud that my program got to the stores. Also later I learned that it was selling in Australia and Europe as well.

The concept:

Intellectual Decathlon is a merciless program. Without ever stating it inside the program (but I know, since I wrote it), it pits one person's intelligence (IQ) against another one.
It is a program, which the loser seldom will keep trying to play against the winner :)
Not in any scientific fashion, but the game is made of ten different events (sub-games) which tests ten different aspects of our intelligence. The more intelligent person is likely to score higher, the score is made like in the true olympic decathlon, about the same range too (little higher). The scores added up and the total winner is likely to be more intelligent. Well....sort of. I recommend that if you are trying to play it against a friend, don't tell him this story, just sit down and play.

Some details:

None of the events require any knowledge of trivia. 

All of the events are randomly presented every single time you play the game, it is not possible to learn it, as far as learning the solutions (it isn't a puzzle but logical tasks).

Some of the events can be instantly understood and played, some others require a bit of getting familiar with them. 

1. Brainblender:
Very simple to understand and play. The computer presents longer and longer string of numbers what the player has to memorize (presented only for a few seconds) and type back. The longer the number is the player can remember, the higher the score is of course.


2. Note the Notes:
Simple to understand and play. The computer plays a very short random "tune", 6-8 bars. Then the computer starts playing a long sequence of random notes and without notice at one point the short tune is played, that is when the player simply has to indicate "this is it" (press a key). If correct, score is awarded, if not correct, deduction, no point deducted or given, if the player doesn't press any key through the whole sequence. Three chances for each player, the scores added up for all three. 
Little twist: before each of the three rounds the player can decide to see the notes visually while played at first or not. If the player chooses not to see it (only hear it), the score doubles (whatever it would be).

Undocumented "secret": the sooner the player presses the "this is it" key, the higher the score will be. Here of course is a bit a probability calculation is involved, since after let's say only two bars, there is a reasonably high chance that the same two bars can emerge in a random sequence and the third bar may not be it. After four bars, this probability goes down to "very unlikely" and three bars somewhere in between.

3. Safecracker:
Medium to understand and play, at least a couple of trial runs are recommended.
The computer presents 9 dials on the screen (3x3) and a single hand in each dial points to either 12,3,6 or 9 o'clock. With key combinations the player has to set as many dials to 12 as he can. For example, pressing number 1 on the keyboard will rotate dial 1,2,4,5 90 degrees clockwise. So, none of the dials can be individuall adjusted (the game explains which key controls which group of dials).

There is an interesting story attached to this event. I honestly admit that I got the idea from the popular Rubik's Cube. Erno Rubik, the inventor of the Rubik's Cube is also Hungarian like I am. Now.....I got the idea of Safecracker, I wrote Intellectual Decathlon, it was published. Shortly after that a game called "Rubik's Clock" appeared on the market, which was nearly exactly the same game (a mechanical game) as Safecracker. Did he steal my idea (which in a way I "stole" from him)? I don't know. Did hungarians think alike? I don't know. He didn't complain, I didn't complain, life went on.

Back to the game. The instructions inside the game fail to state something important: the player doesn't have to come up with a perfect solution. Partially solved dials give significant score (which is always on the screen). So, the player, if sees he is running out of time, can always press Escape and get the score what is on the screen at any given moment (higher if more clocks point to 12 o'clock, lower if more time elapsed).

The event consists of a single round.

4. Verdict Guilty.
Difficult to understand and play, highly recommended to practice it a few times and understand it completely.

This event was not in the published version of Intellectual Decathlon, I replaced an event 
I didn't like, but the published insisted to leave it in (despite I already had the replacement written). I didn't like the original, because it involved some manual dexterity with the keyboard, the published version's fourth event was Mazerace.

Verdict Guilty was a very geniuine idea of mine. Five imaginary criminals are sitting at the police station, all five arrested. Only one committed a crime the other four is innocent. They keep talking to each other and the player has to figure out which of the five is the guilty one and what he crime he committed. There are 5 crimes, 5 places, 5 evidence, and 5 circumstantial evidence. The guilt can be found out more than one ways.
Any character is found obviously lying, IS the guilty one. That however not always obvious. The other way is, if any of the characters are identified with the crime his cohorts are accusing him with, and the matching place, evidence, circumstantial evidence. Further deep logical mastery can lead the an exclusion process, but that requires a deep understanding and experience with the event.

What is very important to understand (easy to misunderstand), but the published didn't allow me to give a long enough explanation in the game: all 5 crimes have matching place, object (evidence) and circumstantial evidence. Thus the murder always committed in the forest, never in the bank or the other places, the object is always the knife and never the machine gun, and so on. All five characters are matched with a place, an object (evidence) and a circumstantial evidence. That does NOT mean they are guilty of anything. Thus, if one of the character is accused with murder (by the others), was seen at the post office (which is linked with blackmail as crime) and had a bottle of rum with him (theft is the linked crime), doesn't make him guilty of anything. Only if the accusation matches the place, object, circumstantial evidence.

The two players play at the same time at the keyboard and whichever guesses first (correctly) gets the score. The other gets nothing. Three rounds of "crimes" presented, thus three chances for scoring.

5. Apple Derby
Probably the most difficult event to learn, medium difficult to play (makes it easier that no force to play, the player can just "stay out", lose nothing, win nothing). Apple Derby was another genuine idea of mine. A horserace where betting is going on, yet luck is not a factor at all, only logic. The players bet the points they made during the first four events.

6 horses, 6 rounds, but out of that 5 "happened before" and the results of the previous 5 races presented to the players, out of which they have to conclude the "quality" of each horse. Then comes the 6th event and that is when the betting takes place. Three different bets allowed, obviously the better prediction earns higher points.

The interesting aspect of the game: there is no good horse or bad horse. They are just differently sensitive to various circumstances which are of course presented for the "previous 5 races" and the actual race. The instructions are detailed and satisfactory.
I repeat: NO LUCK involved, it is all pure logic. The race is pre-determined (although looks random), the moment the "horses" take off, the program knows exactly which one will win (by design). That's what the players have to figure out.

The betting is limited, so in this event a player can't run away by huge bets. The best score therefore is in the same range as in the other events.

6. Lying digits:
Very easy to learn and play. 10 simple (four basic operation) math problems flashed on the screen with the solution which is either wrong or right, and that's all the players has to indicate.

The nasty trick by the programmer: The result is wrong only by (in) one digit, so it is sometimes not at all obvious. 

7: Matchmaker:
Very easy to learn and play. 10 wordpairs are displayed in two columns. Then the program clears that display, places only one column words back on the screen and
displays the other column words one by one, and the player has to match the word with it's pair. The faster, the more, the higher the score is.

Little mental tricks helps. 30 second is not enough to truly memorize 10 random word pairs. I try to find a quick mental connection, even between too totally illogical "match". That often helps a great deal.

8. Brainblender:
Medium difficult to learn and play. It is a rather abstract board game, great deal of memory, strategy and combination involved. Instructions in the game are well written, so that is not a problem. Another one of my original ideas, probably could be a standalone game, but it is part of Intellectual Decathlon. Recommended to practice before play.

9. Instant Replay ?:
Easy to learn and play. The program flashes a "picture" on the screen (primitively drawn objects). Then a "flash" and another picture comes on the screen. It is either exactly the same or one object is not the same. That is what the simultaniously playing players have to determine (same, different). The game keeps going on until both player "falls" (passes three times or makes a mistake). Each round one more item on the screen, so it can quickly get quite messy :). 

The strategy is merciless. Since it is the 9th event, the player behind gets a chance to catch up with perfect (good) play. Each correct hit increases the score. BUT.....one mistake and the player not only out, but only gets half of the total score he accumulated in this event.
If the player is not sure, he can just "pass" without guessing and keep on playing. Three passes also ends the game, but the full score is kept. Both player plays at the keyboard at the same time, but both can score in each round. 

10. Abstrajig:
Easy to learn and play. A randomly generated abstract picture comes on the screen, cut into 16 pieces, shuffled, and the player has to put it back together as in a jigsaw puzzle.
The leader can "relax" by choosing "frame" which makes the solution very easy, but for only half of the score. The player behind in score has the chance to go without the frame,
more difficult, but twice the score.

On the PC it is a little bit cumbersome, since the movement Up-Down-Left-Right can't be done only with the arrows, the up and down is A and Z, as from the old Apple days (there was no up-down arrows). Plenty of time to solve it. Partial solution gives some score. 

And that's it. Short term memory, simple math, logic, combinative ability, strategy, spacial orientation, verbal skill, many more in a playful atmosphere, turns this game into an invitation "let's compare our mind's ability", sor of. The typical playing time is between one and two hours. The game can be saved and continued later (but only one game can be saved). There is a separate practice mode, can be used without disturbing the saved game, if any.

Undocumented feature: any event during competition can be skipped, if CTRL-C is pressed. The program jumps to the end of the given event and allows to "go on".
Also, any event can be replayed, if both players agree, by pressing CTRL-C and choose "Replay Event". The program wipes partial scores for that event and restarts the event.

Final statement: I was very proud writing this game, not so much because it was published, but because I think I succeeded to create a game which is different, even up to date in the gaming world. I am thinking of re-writing it for the PC (and of course all rights reserved by the Author:)

Gabor Laufer, M.D.
gab.lau@verizon.net