Forums

95% of people get this wrong, Are Chess Players Different?

Sort:
jcampos8782
jcampos8782
Feb 27, 2013
0
#21

16

abiogenesis23
abiogenesis23
Feb 27, 2013
0
#22
FirebrandX wrote:
abiogenesis23 wrote:
FirebrandX wrote:

Assuming the rules are the borders must not be broken and the sides must be equidistant, I count 16 squares.

Sides being equidistant is a property of square, right? lol

Is it really that funny? I like to cover all the rules bases before answering because someone else giving the test may decide that's not what they figure a square is, no matter how ridiculous it may seem. So how's that for a "lol"?

Calm down Mr. Serious.  Have a beer or something.  

jolan1
jolan1
Feb 28, 2013
0
#23

15 maybe

ChessisGood
ChessisGood
Feb 28, 2013
0
#24

9 - 1x1 Squares

5 - 2x2 Sqares

1 - 3x3 Square

1 - 4x4 Square

(6 - Sides are bottoms and tips of matches)

16/22 Squares

jolan1
jolan1
Feb 28, 2013
0
#25

change my mind 16 

abiogenesis23
abiogenesis23
Feb 28, 2013
0
#26
FirebrandX wrote:
abiogenesis23 wrote:
FirebrandX wrote:
abiogenesis23 wrote:
FirebrandX wrote:

Assuming the rules are the borders must not be broken and the sides must be equidistant, I count 16 squares.

Sides being equidistant is a property of square, right? lol

Is it really that funny? I like to cover all the rules bases before answering because someone else giving the test may decide that's not what they figure a square is, no matter how ridiculous it may seem. So how's that for a "lol"?

Calm down Mr. Serious.  Have a beer or something.  

I get pissed when I made out to be a retard. That's not uncommon I would think for people to react that way. Am I wrong?

It was just a playful jab at your assumption, it wasn't meant to be an attack on your intelligence...

MSC157
MSC157
Feb 28, 2013
0
#27

Definitely 16. :)

MSC157
MSC157
Feb 28, 2013
0
#28
LisaV wrote:

I'm guessing the trick answer is something like:  0 -- none of the matchsticks are connected, so there are no squares.  

+1

gaereagdag
gaereagdag
Closed: Inactive
Feb 28, 2013
0
#29

15

shepi13
NM shepi13
Show your flair!
Feb 28, 2013
0
#30
LisaV wrote:

I'm guessing the trick answer is something like:  0 -- none of the matchsticks are connected, so there are no squares.  

No, the question did not ask how many squares there are, but rather how many we could count, even squares that don't exist.

And me, I see dead squares.

volks7
volks7
Feb 28, 2013
0
#31

I see 52 squares......16 square shapes formed by the matchsticks + 36 square shape matchsticks....

fburton
fburton
Feb 28, 2013
0
#32

There are, of course, 16 squares by any sensible definition. However, I can count 17 squares (by counting one of them twice), so 17 is one of the right answers and the definitely the right answer for me. I would expect almost everyone to get this right.

SisypheanLife
SisypheanLife
Feb 28, 2013
0
#33

16

ozzie_c_cobblepot
NM ozzie_c_cobblepot
Show your flair!
Feb 28, 2013
0
#34

These Facebook-style hooks are so ridiculous. A California city with no 'e'??? First one I thought of was San Francisco, next was Cupertino. After that, I had to think longer to come up with one at had an e.

Proffessor_Jensuun
Proffessor_Jensuun
Feb 28, 2013
0
#35

16

stephen_33
stephen_33
Show your flair!
Feb 28, 2013
0
#36

I hope this isn't one of those tedious trick questions but 16 as well.

pie314271
pie314271
Closed: Inactive
Feb 28, 2013
0
#37

16

repossession
repossession
Feb 28, 2013
0
#38

Wait a minute... How is this a logic puzzle?

dov1enya
dov1enya
Feb 28, 2013
0
#39

16

Superus
Superus
Feb 28, 2013
0
#40

16