This page contains one or more outdated guild links.
Guilds and the Tavern were removed from Habitica on August 8, 2023. If you know the status of the guild(s) mentioned in this page, please update their links and remove the template {{Contains outdated guild links}} from this page. Thank you!
Note: This page is in The Keep and is not part of the main wiki.
Pages in The Keep are usually unofficial, personal, and/or administrative pages. They may not be up-to-date or actively maintained, but generally do not need to be edited by unaffiliated users.
This page contains hints and solutions for the riddles solved in the Valley of Riddles - a former guild in Habitica.
You can add a topic to the discussion of this page if you want to share your opinion about the assumptions or logic of a riddle. However let the spoilers on this page be the only place to reveal the answer (or its alternatives).
How are vampires like false teeth?
What do you get when you drop a pumpkin?
What genre of music does a mummy like the best?
Why do ghosts like to ride elevators?
Where do fashionable ghosts shop for sheets?
Why did the ghost go into the bar?
What do you call a witch who lives at the beach?
What was the witch's favorite subject in school?
Why didn't the skeleton tango?
Solution
How are vampires like false teeth? They both come out at night.
What do you get when you drop a pumpkin? Squash.
What genre of music does a mummy like the best? Wrap!
Why do ghosts like to ride elevators? It raises their spirits.
Where do fashionable ghosts shop for sheets? Bootiques.
Why did the ghost go into the bar? For the Boos.
What do you call a witch who lives at the beach? A sand-witch.
What was the witch's favorite subject in school? Spelling.
Why didn't the skeleton tango? He had no body to dance with.
7 pirates have 100 pieces of gold. They can't decide how to divide it, so they
decide Pirate 1 should make a proposal divvying the booty and all the pirates
(including Pirate 1) will vote on it. If a majority of the pirates agree, they
all go home with their allotted portion. Otherwise, Pirate 1 walks the plank,
and Pirate 2 makes a proposal (then Pirate 3, etc.).
If you are Pirate 1, what is the maximum amount of booty you can claim for yourself
without walking the plank? (Looking for a straight numerical answer here.)
Addendum: The pirates are all perfectly rational and want to maximize their
individual loot.
Hint 1
The way this riddle is phrased, it doesn't have a unique solution. Some points are left unclear - so, because of lack of data, it can't be solved.
Hint 2
The riddle that Lisa probably wanted to ask is known as the pirate game. Obviously, in Lisa's riddle, there are 7 pirates instead of 5 - but that's no problem because the classic pirate game has also been solved for any number of pirates. Also, in the classic pirate game, a lot of rules are specified which Lisa just omits - but that's not the main problem either because you could just assume they are the same as in the Wikipedia article (and comments to clarify those assumptions could have been added to the challenge later, as Lisa tried to do by adding "The pirates are all perfectly rational and want to maximize their individual loot."). However, in Lisa's version, there is one thing that's clearly different from the classic pirate game (i.e., it contradicts one of the rules in the Wikipedia article), which is why the solution to the classic pirate game doesn't work for Lisa's riddle. That difference is also the reason why the solution to Lisa's riddle (assuming all the other rules are as in the Wikipedia article) is more complicated than that of the original pirate game, and requires some additional assumptions.
Hint 3
The difference between Lisa's riddle and the classic pirate game with 7 pirates is that, in Lisa's case, a majority vote is needed for the proposal to be accepted. If there is a tie, the pirate who made the proposal will walk the plank.
In the classic pirate game, to quote the Wikipedia article, "in case of a tie vote the proposer has the casting vote". And since the proposer always votes for the proposal because (also quoting Wikipedia) "first of all, each pirate wants to survive", that means that, in the classic pirate game, a tie is sufficient for the proposal to be accepted, whereas in Lisa's riddle, it is not. This is the cause why the solutions to both riddles are different.
As for the rules that are specified in the classic pirate game but aren't so clear in Lisa's riddle, those are (quoting Wikipedia again):
First of all, each pirate wants to survive. (Ok, that would be logical for most people - but not so much for pirates who often risk their lives if there is a chance to win treasure!)
Second, given survival, each pirate wants to maximize the number of gold coins each receives. (Ok, that's logical as well.)
Third, each pirate would prefer to throw another overboard, if all other results would otherwise be equal. (That's something that really has to be stated explicitly! It isn't clear from the text of Lisa's riddle, and if you assume that they'd rather let each other live if all other results - i.e., their own survival and financial gain - would be the same, you get a different solution.)
The pirates do not trust each other, and will neither make nor honor any promises between pirates apart from a proposed distribution plan that gives a whole number of gold coins to each pirate. (Ok, that's something most people would assume as well.)
These assumptions are sufficient to solve the classic pirate game. However, they aren't for Lisa's riddle. Why? Because, if you try to solve Lisa's riddle, you get cases where pirates can make several different proposals - and each leads to their own survival as well as the same (maximum possible) number of gold coins for the pirate who makes the proposal. So you need an additional assumption which proposal the pirate will choose in such cases, or if there's a chance that they will choose each with a certain probability. Depending on which assumptions you make, you can get different solutions. For Lisa's riddle, let's choose the following rule:
If a pirate can make several different proposals, each leading to 'eir own survival as well as the same (maximum possible) number of gold coins for 'emsef, the pirate "draws lots", i.e., 'e chooses a proposal randomly with the same probability for each of these proposals.
(Trying to use gender-neutral pronouns here - with apostrophes, it almost looks like Pirate English...)
Are all the rules and assumptions covered now? No! Because now we don't just have cases where a pirate thinks: "If I vote pro, I get x gold coins, and if I vote contra, I get y gold coins - which is more?", but we also have cases where a pirate has to compare "I get x gold coins if I vote pro" to "I get y1 gold coins with the probability p1, and y2 gold coins with the probability p2, and y3 gold coins with the probability p3, etc., if I vote contra". In such cases, what does "maximizing the number of gold coins" mean? The most logical assumption would be to try to maximize the expected value. However, it wouldn't be very far-fetched to assume instead that the pirates might choose the option with the highest possible outcome, i.e., try to maximize the best case. (For example, if they had to choose between 2 gold coins now, or 10 gold coins with a probability of 10%, and 0 gold coins with a probability of 90%, if they'd try to maximize the expected value, they'd choose the 2 gold coins, and if they'd try to maximize the best possible outcome, they'd choose the "10 or 0 gold coins" option which has an expected value of 1 gold coin.) Some people might even assume that the pirates try to maximize the worst case. (In our example, that would mean they'd choose the 2 gold coins because 2 is more than 0, which is what they'd get in the worst case of the "10 or 0 gold coins" option.) So this has to be clarified. (And each of these assumptions can lead to different solutions.) For Lisa's riddle, let's choose the following assumption (a slightly clarified version of the classic pirate game rule):
Second, given survival, each pirate wants to maximize the expected value of the number of gold coins each receives.
Are we done with rules and assumptions and preconditions now? Not yet! Because what happens if the pirate has to choose between two options with the same expected value? (For example, what if "either 2 gold coins now, or 10 gold coins with a 20% probability and 0 gold coins with an 80% probability"? The expected value is 2 gold coins in both cases.) Will the pirate then consider them the same, and fall back on the "each pirate would prefer to throw another overboard, if all other results would otherwise be equal" rule? Or will 'e then choose the option with the better "best case", or the better "worst case"? Depending on what we assume here, it can lead to different solutions. For Lisa's riddle, let's choose the following assumption (again, a slightly clarified version of the classic pirate game rule):
Third, each pirate would prefer to throw another overboard, if all other results (i.e., their own survival and the expected value of the number of gold coins they receive) would otherwise be equal. (In other words, once the pirates have calculated the expected values and found them to be the same, they say: "Enough of all these calculations! We're pirates, not accountants! Let's kill!")
And with all these additional specifications and assumptions, Lisa's riddle is now actually solvable with just one possible solution. Try it!
Solution
As already established in the hints (and it helps to read those before the solution!), the riddle doesn't have a unique solution unless some additional assumptions are established beforehand.
With the assumptions clarified in the hints, which are:
First of all, each pirate wants to survive.
Second, given survival, each pirate wants to maximize the expected value of the the number of gold coins 'e receives.
Third, each pirate would prefer to throw another overboard, if all other results (i.e., the pirate's own survival and the expected value of the number of gold coins 'e receives) would otherwise be equal.
If a pirate can make several different proposals, each leading to the pirate's own survival as well as the same (maximum possible) number of gold coins for 'emself, the pirate "draws lots", that means, 'e chooses a proposal randomly with the same probability for each of these proposals.
The pirates do not trust each other, and will neither make nor honor any promises between pirates apart from a proposed distribution plan that gives a whole number of gold coins to each pirate.
the following will happen:
If there was only one pirate (pirate 7) left, pirate 7 would get all 100 pieces of gold.
If there were only two pirates (6 and 7) left, pirate 7 would vote against pirate 6 in any case (even if pirate 6 offered 'em all the money, because of assumption 3), pirate 6 would then walk the plank (because there's a tie, not a majority vote), and pirate 7 would get all the gold. Therefore, pirate 6 will want to avoid this situation at all cost (because 'e wants to survive). Pirate 7 will want to generate that situation if at all possible, even if someone offers 'em 100 gold before (because of assumption 3). Therefore, if there were three pirates (5, 6, and 7) left, pirate 6 would always vote pro, and pirate 7 would always vote contra.
If there were only three pirates (5, 6, and 7) left, pirate 5 can distribute (100, 0, 0), and votes will be (1, 1, 0). (“1” means pro, “0” means contra). Therefore, if there were four pirates left, pirate 5 would always vote contra (even if 'e was offered 100 gold, because of assumption 3). Pirates 6 and 7 would vote pro for 1 gold or more, but would vote contra for 0 gold (because of assumption 3).
If there were only four pirates left, pirate 4 can distribute (98, 0, 1, 1), and votes will be (1, 0, 1, 1). Pirate 4 can’t keep more than 98 or 'e’d lose one of the two votes of pirates 6 and 7, and 'e needs both to survive (because 'e needs a majority vote). So, if there were five pirates left, pirate 4 would vote contra for 98 or less (because of assumption 3), and pro for 99 gold or more. Pirate 5 would vote contra for 0 gold (because of assumption 3), and pro for 1 gold or more. Pirates 6 and 7 would each vote contra for 1 gold or less (because of assumption 3), and pro for 2 gold or more.
If there were only five pirates (3 – 7) left, pirate 3 can distribute either (97, 0, 1, 0, 2) or (97, 0, 1, 2, 0), and votes will be either (1, 0, 1, 0, 1) or (1, 0, 1, 1, 0). Pirate 3 will bribe pirate 5 because that is cheapest. Since only one of the votes of pirates 6 and 7 is needed, it is sufficient to bribe only one. Because of assumption 4 (i.e., one of the two optimal distributions is chosen randomly with equal probability), they both have 50% chances of getting 2 gold or getting nothing (and therefore an expected value of 1 gold each). So the expected values that the pirates get (not the proposal!) are (97, 0, 1, 1, 1). So, if there were six pirates left, pirate 3 would vote pro for 98 gold or more (otherwise contra), pirate 4 would vote pro for 1 gold or more (otherwise contra), and pirates 5, 6, and 7 would each vote pro for 2 gold or more (otherwise contra).
If there were six pirates left, pirate 2 can distribute either (95, 0, 1, 0, 2, 2) or (95, 0, 1, 2, 0, 2) or (95, 0, 1, 2, 2, 0) with votes (1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1) or (1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1) or (1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0). Pirate 2 will always bribe pirate 4 because that is cheapest. Pirates 5, 6, and 7 each cost the same (2 gold) to bribe, and pirate 2 needs only two of their votes. Because of assumption 4, each of the pirates 5, 6, and 7 has a 66,7% (2/3) chance of getting 2 gold and a 33,3% (1/3) chance of getting nothing (and therefore an expected value of 1,33 (4/3) gold each). So the expected values that the pirates get (not the proposal!) are (95, 0, 1, 4/3, 4/3, 4/3). So, if there are all seven pirates left, pirate 2 would vote pro for 96 gold or more (otherwise contra), pirate 3 would vote pro for 1 gold or more (otherwise contra), and pirates 4 - 7 would vote pro for 2 gold or more (otherwise contra).
When there are 7 pirates, pirate 1 can distribute (95, 0, 1, a, b, c, d) where two of the a, b, c, d are 2 and the other two are 0. Votes will be (1, 0, 1, e, f, g, h) with two of the e, f, g, h votes pro (the ones who get 2 gold), the others contra. Pirate 1 will always bribe pirate 3 because, for 1 gold, bribing pirate 3 is cheapest. Pirate 1 needs to bribe only two of the others to get the necessary 4 pro votes. So, the answer to the riddle is “95”. And there are six possible proposals pirate 1 can choose: (95, 0, 1, 0, 0, 2, 2), (95, 0, 1, 0, 2, 0, 2), (95, 0, 1, 0, 2, 2, 0), (95, 0, 1, 2, 0, 0, 2), (95, 0, 1, 2, 0, 2, 0), (95, 0, 1, 2, 2, 0, 0).
That’s the solution of the "Don't Walk the Plank!" riddle for the assumptions given above.
(If, instead, you assume that each pirates would rather let the others live if all other results (i.e., the pirate's own survival and the expected value of the number of gold coins 'e receives) would otherwise be equal, the result is even more surprising: You'll end up with pirate 1 keeping all the 100 gold. Try figuring it out!)
(The solution for the original pirate game with 7 pirates - in which, if there is a tie, the pirate survives, whereas in Lisa's riddle, 'e dies - would, of course, be "97" with the only possible proposal (97, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1).)
Once upon a time there lived a druid in Habitica. No one would remember his name now.
But he used to be well-known all over the land. The stories told he had mastered his
talents and became a mighty alchemist. They said he was able to turn magical drawings
into gems. Many centuries have passed and the druid's secret has been forgotten.
However you find an old manuscript saying one can turn a simple drawing
into a gem having only a drawing instrument, something to draw on - and some
luck, of course.
The simple instruction is to draw a geometric shape which can be described as:
- having an even number of vertices (corners) not exceeding 98,
- having only straight line segments (sides),
- having edges (sides) closing in a loop (a closed chain),
- each side having common points only with the two nearby sides (in the corners),
- the number of sides being exactly twice as high as the number of imaginary infinite
straight lines they belong to,
- having the minimal number of corners and edges while meeting all other requirements.
That's it! And now, can you make such a drawing and become the druid's follower?
Hint 1
As proven by Mara the Marine Marauder, the minimal number of vertices (corners) and segments (sides) is 10.
Hint 2
You wouldn't have to make up a word to name this shape - there's one you've known for quite a long time already.
Hint 3
It turns out moderators in Habitica know the secret of the druid: they always use the shape, and probably this is what helps them assign gems to themselves. =)
Here's a simple formal proof that there can't be a solution with fewer than 10 sides and corners:
Imagine n (infinite) straight lines. They intersect at 1 + 2 + ... + (n-1) points at most. (This sum can be simplified to n * (n-1) / 2, but we won't need that for this proof.) Why is that so? Only one line - no crossing points. Add second line - it crosses the first, 1 point. Add third line - it crosses the first two lines, so, 2 more crossing points. And so on. (If any of the lines are parallel, or if three or more lines intersect at the same point, there are fewer intersection points - but there can never be more.)
All the corners of the solution figure can only lie on intersections of the infinite lines the sides lie on. And in a closed loop where the sides only have common points at the corners, there are as many corners as there are sides - so there must be twice as many corners as there are lines.
1 line -> 0 intersection points, but we'd need at least 2.
2 lines -> 1 intersection point (or fewer), but we'd need at least 4.
3 lines -> 1 + 2 = 3 intersection points (or fewer), but we'd need at least 6.
4 lines -> 1 + 2 + 3 = 6 intersection points (or fewer), but we'd need at least 8.
So 5 lines (and therefore 10 sides and 10 corners, which use all the existing 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10 intersection points) are the minimal solution. Q.E.D.
You have this rope that everyone's talking about, which burns for exactly 1
hour, but not in a regular way, i.e., not at the same speed for every part
of the rope. Actually, it's some kind of fuse - easy to light, easy to
extinguish, easy to cut. (That's also why you know the burning time so exactly
- it said so on the package.) You have only one of it. And you have a lighter.
It's a good lighter, you can light it quickly many, many times. You have some
fireproof space around you where you can arrange the fuse any way you like.
You have either a pair of scissors, or a pair of old, ugly and cheap but solid
and sturdy shoes, but not both. And you are clever, and quick, have a good
reaction time and a high attention span. And you have some cookies in your
stove which should bake for exactly 12 minutes (or as close as you can get to
it). And of course, you absolutely refuse to use a clock (or your mobile, or
the stove's built-in timer) or anything else than the "burning rope" method
to measure those 12 minutes. What do you do?
Special pajama party riddle in the guild chat!
Hint 1
You may want to imagine a lighter like these ones. Reason: You can light a rope lying on some surface, and more quickly, and more precisely. (Oh, and it's refillable and therefore more eco-friendly!) The riddle would work with a zippo, too, but it's easier with a lighter with a "snout". (Do they have a name?) Now close your eyes, randomly point the lighter somewhere, and light it. What will happen? (You can also repeat this.)
Hint 2
The "close your eyes" approach would actually work! If someone was standing next to you who knows the solution, and you'd light the rope at some random point, that person could actually continue in such a way that they could measure 12 min (and not by immediately extinguishing the rope where you lighted it). They would have to act immediately though.
Hint 3
Forget the timing! Forget the rope! Think about the flames!
Keep in mind that 12 minutes are 1/5 of an hour, and don't get distracted from it! - And then think about flames!
Hint 4
The whole solution more or less assumes that lighting the rope takes no time at all - and therefore, if you did it in practice, it would be slightly inexact, but not by much. By the way, the whole idea of the solution fits into one sentence. If you phrased that sentence as an order and told it to a 10-year-old (who doesn't even know it's all about measuring time), the kid would, with a high probability, do exactly the right thing, and it would take 12 minutes. Another hint: The same method would also work with 30 min, 20 min, 15 min, 12 min (obviously), 10 min, and so on. You'd just have to change one word.
Hint 5
If you'd have to measure 10 or 15 min instead of 12, you'd need neither scissors nor shoes.
Hint 6
After measuring the 12 min, there's no rope left.
Hint 7
The shoes enable you to extinguish flames (by stepping on them). In fact, the "shoes or scissors" condition translates to "You can either cut the rope into pieces, or extinguish already burning flames, but not both."
Hint 8
How many flames should be burning at the same time? (And how do you achieve this in practice?)
Solution
To quote AuntJovie who posted the solution in guild chat:
"I can make the twelve-minute timer work if there are five burning ends going constantly. Here's my proposal: Light the rope at three places: one end, two spots in the middle. Now there are five burning ends on three different segments (one segment has just one of its ends burning). If one of the two-ends-burning segments burns out, light another segment in the middle, thereby maintaining five burning ends. If the one-end-burning segment burns out, then I use the boots (I pick the boots!) to stamp out one end of a two-ends-burning segment, then light it" [or, actually, any one of the segments] "in the middle. (With the scissors, I would cut one of the two-ends-burning segments and light just one of the resulting ends.) When all the fuse is burnt, it's cookie time!"
The method AuntJovie described is the optimal one (with the least amount of lighting and extinguishing/cutting) - but it would also work if you chose a different way of keeping the rope burning at five ends. (For example, with the scissors, you could also cut four, five or more pieces and keep five of their ends burning. With the boots, you could do more extinguishing and lighting.) But it would be less exact because you'd spend more time lighting and extinguishing/cutting.
Explanatory Notes
The sentence (mentioned in Hint 4) you could say to a ten-year-old to sum it up would be "Just always keep five ends of the rope burning, until there's no rope left!" (Probably followed by "If you do it right, you'll get cookies!" as an incentive.)
The same method would work for 60 min (1 h), 30 min (1/2 h), 20 min (1/3 h), and so on as long as it is 1/n of an hour (with n being a natural number) - at least in theory. You'd just have to exchange "five" with the number n. That would mean that, at the start (using AuntJovie's optimal solution), you would:
for even n: light the rope at both ends and (n-2)/2 spots in the middle, resulting in n/2 segments all burning at both ends,
for uneven n: light the rope at one end and (n-1)/2 spots in the middle, resulting in (n+1)/2 segments, one of which is burning at one end, the others at both.
For even n, since you only have segments burning at both ends (and when one burns out, you light one of the remaining ones in the middle, and still only have segments burning at both ends), you don't need to extinguish flames or cut the rope.
In practice, if you'd have to take care of too many burning ends, you'd have to do so much lighting (and, for uneven n, extinguishing or cutting) that you wouldn't be able to do it quickly enough and the time it would take could no longer be ignored - so it wouldn't work.
Mathematically speaking, you'd have to light the rope an infinite number of times (not at the start but during the whole process) unless you guess exactly right once and create segments burning up all at the same time. But in practice, you'd just end up with shorter and shorter pieces which would at some point just go up in flames before you can relight one of them in the middle - and that's close enough to creating segments burning up all at the same time.
Origin
The riddle is just a spin-off of the original "burning rope" riddle which asks for measuring 45 minutes with two ropes, and can be found on many riddle websites like, just for example, this one. A variation of the original riddle was first posted in guild chat by Lisa - she didn't ask for 45 min like in the original, but for 15 min, which got Mara the Marine Marauder thinking about how this could also be done with one rope. Mara the Marine Marauder thought up her version of the riddle herself, and posted it in guild chat on May 18, 2015. But a few weeks afterwards, she did a bit of googling and found that several other people had had exactly the same idea independently before and discussed it in various riddle forums (which isn't surprising - the original riddle practically begs for it). They also did more complicated things with two ropes as you can see here, for example. But usually without cookies.
The Black Stallion -
Thin as an alien,
But so strong, you can admire -
Jumps into the fire!
Hint 1
The Black Stallion might have helped you in February 2015 or December 2018 if you decided to stay indoors. It also may be useful now if you peek into the guild for Habitica coders. However Matt Boch the Beast Master hasn't been seen with the Black Stallion recently.
Hint 2
Alright, even if you didn't enjoy the surroundings in February 2015 or December 2018 and didn't pay a visit to the guild for Habitica coders - there's still one situation in Habitica which can give you a hint about the Black Stallion. That is if you happen to be a fully equipped horse stealer (or at least know one here). In this case the Black Stallion - if taken overseas to China - might be mistaken for the tiger head regarded as a deadly weapon!
Hint 3
You can play the Black Stallion is some casinos, but I believe Black Jack would be more popular.
Answer
A poker. (An iron fireplace poker.)
Explanatory Notes
An iron poker looks like this or this thing. It's a tool used to move wooden pieces on fire in the fireplace. It's compared to a black stallion that jumps into the fire which, I suppose, gives an image of something solid, strong, slim being put into flames without any worries of it being damaged by fire. Also, as seen in the linked images, the poker's tip can have a slight resemblance to the shape of a horse's head and neck.
The Russian original riddle has only 2 lines:
Черный конь
скачет в огонь.
The second and the third line in the challenge riddle are added to keep the sense of rhyme when translated from the original into English.
As there's not much to add to the riddle text, hints turned out to be spin-off riddles.
Hint 1 encourages you to go back to February 2015 or December 2018 and look at the newly added Backgrounds. The only "indoors" ones for those months are "Blacksmithy" and "Snowy Day Fireplace". Hint 1 also suggests a visit to the Aspiring Blacksmiths (Coding For Habitica) guild. A fire poker would be useful to a traditional blacksmith. (In the past, the guild also had an image of a blacksmith forge which is still being used on the Contributing to Habitica wiki page.) So you should have got an idea of what kind of fire is meant in the riddle. Hint 1 also implies that the riddle is actually not about animals.
Hint 2 suggests that the black stallion may be somehow similar to the hook sword - the weapon needed by a Rogue to get Ultimate Gear achievement. It's a Chinese weapon also known as a tiger head hook - you can see it on this photo. (It also has a wikipedia article.)
Hint 3 is just giving away the answer - but the word is used in another meaning (poker as a card game).
At last the Sphinx has awakened. He heaves a deep sigh and starts a new story -
although you haven't asked for one.
"I've lived a long life and I've seen many strange and mysterious events
happening." - he breathes another sigh and stays silent for a couple of
moments - "Yes, once I've seen the fall of a mighty member of royalty.
One day they were walking along the terrace expecting nothing but a pleasant
walk. They were so graceful in their well-fit shiny luxurious robe. And their
escort of the most loyal men were following them. All of a sudden, a horse
came from around the corner. The horse was galloping fast, and no one could
stop it. In just a moment, the horse jumped over the royal person - so proud
of themselves before. They knew it was the moment of disgrace. There was
nothing else to do to save their face, and no one else could help them now.
Shocked, they made two or three steps back at once, and then immediately had
to officially leave the throne - declaring it in front of everyone who
witnessed that shameful moment".
The Sphinx pauses, and you notice a sparkle in his eyes. He seems to be
willing to say something else, but you have no idea what. The Sphinx keeps
staring at you, and the sparkle in his eyes now frightens you. You should
definitely react somehow to show that you do understand him. Time goes slowly
here. You'd better ask the question the Sphinx is waiting for.
Addendum 1
In fact, the right question may be asked in many different ways, but it should be a one-sentence question (and it shouldn't be an alternative one) - so make sure you take into account all the details!
Addendum 2
You get the idea, but don't know what to ask about? Do you think this is the end of the story? Well, the Sphinx has something else to say to you continuing his story. There should be some meaning in the story he's telling you. Your question should fit in the ending logically, or at least shouldn't contradict it.
Hint 1
Try to remember - haven't you seen a horse jumping over a royal person yourself? Think of this situation as a game and as something that can happen under your control. Still no ideas? Try to play this game in your imagination, and maybe you'll find the moment when the Sphinx has stopped.
Hint 2
In the chess game, a piece called a knight is usually represented by a horse's head and neck. So what happened to the knight?
Hint 3
Unfortunately, the knight in this story is not the member of royalty, so it's not him who fell. Its complete move looks like the letter L - so it moves from around the corner - and unlike all other standard chess pieces, the knight can 'jump over' other pieces. But what was that other piece? And what's more important, what were the consequences? Try to play this game in your imagination once again.
Hint 4
The member of royalty in a chess game is surely a queen or a king. But the story doesn't tell us who exactly. Maybe there's a purpose? Try to find a hint in the text of the riddle. In what way does the answer to this question influence the story?
Hint 5
The king wasn't able to make "two or three" steps in one turn, as it moves only one square at a time apart from the move of castling, but nothing in the riddle suggests castling. So it was the queen. Now that you know it, you can probably guess why the queen had to leave the throne. But was it the end of the game?
Hint 6
The queen was surely captured. The only two game options when a player loses the most valuable piece are: Either trying to trick the opponent on purpose, or avoiding the threat for a king or maybe another piece that is crucial in the current game situation. Which of the two options might have happened in the depicted game?
Hint 7
The Sphinx describes the queen as shocked at that moment. So the player controlling the queen didn't expect the other player to make this move, and he was unable to save the queen - due to the threat of check, checkmate, or another deadly risk. So the queen was moved in the only possible way to meet the attack - and the player understood he was losing the queen with this move. Right, now you know the whole story. But is it the end of the game? I'm sure you are ready to ask the question the Sphinx is waiting for.
Hint 8
Let me put it simply: What is the goal of any game? You've seen a situation which might have been the beginning of a disaster, but you haven't been told if the disaster actually happened... What else to ask?
Solution
You ask the Sphinx: "Did the player who had lost the queen lose the chess game then?"
P.S.
The Sphinx continues with something you can perhaps call a sad smile on his face.
"Losing something you believe you value most" - says the Sphinx - "doesn't necessarily
mean losing it all at once. Having lost a horse, a castle, the most loyal men, and great
opportunities or even when your queen has been captured by someone else - you must not
forget about the purpose of it all, your main goal. The one you play this game for.
Are you sure you know it?"
You stay speechless staring at the Sphinx, and suddenly he winks at you.
"No," - says the Sphinx - "that player managed to win without the queen.
In fact one of the pawns became his queen a bit later".
You have two ropes and an endless supply of matches. Each rope takes
exactly 1 hour to burn, but these ropes are strangely knotted and they
burn neither evenly nor at the same speed. How do you obtain exactly
15 minutes?
(Assume you are in a dark cave with nothing else to guide you.)
Hint 1
The are (at least) two possible solutions. But the original riddle asks for measuring not 15 minutes but 45 minutes. Only one of the two solutions for measuring 15 minutes also works for 45 minutes. That's the one Lisa probably wanted to ask for. It uses both ropes. The second solution only needs one rope.
Solution 1
Light the first rope at both ends and the second rope at one end. When the first rope is completely burned up, 30 minutes will have passed. At that moment, light the second end of the second rope, too. From then until the second rope is completely burned up, 15 more minutes will pass. (So, with this method, you can measure both the 15 minutes that Lisa asked for, and the 45 minutes that the original riddle asks for.)
Solution 2
There is also a method to measure 15 minutes using only one of the two ropes. For that method, see the Rope'n'Cookies riddle. That riddle asks for 12 minutes, but explains in the Explanatory Notes how the method can also be used for various other time intervals (among them 15 minutes).
This is an interview question. You are sweating in your business suit,
and your interrogator leans across the table:
"You are driving a car that can only fit one passenger. You stop at a red
light and see three people waiting at a bus stop in the pouring rain.
First is a doctor who once saved your life. You would give anything to
finally repay that favor. Now is your first and only chance.
Second is your dream girl who can bring you the most happiness. But
romance requires a reason to meet. Now is your one and only chance.
Third is a dying man who needs to be rushed to the hospital. No one else
will help him in time. Now is his final and only chance.
Whom do you pick, and why?"
Solution
You put the dying man on the passenger seat, give the doctor your car keys and ask the doctor to drive to the hospital and keep the car, and wait with your dream girl at the bus stop for the bus.
My roof, it is crumbling; my walls are encrusted; and dare you look within?
For within the walls of my hot little halls is gathered the bringer of sin.
Hint 1
There are bread crumbs or some crumbly topping on top.
Hint 2
Actually the walls are pie crust.
Hint 3
Pie is little and hot. If you figured the snake, why not the apple with which the serpent tempted Eve?
I am the charm of kittens
A trinity made square
I am the last one single
But I'm nothing without my tail.
Solution
The number 9.
Explanatory Notes
Cats are said to have nine lives. 3² = 9. When counting, 9 is the last number with only a single digit. Without its "tail", 9 looks like 0 (zero = nothing).
In marble walls as white as milk,
Lined with a skin as soft as silk;
Within a fountain crystal clear,
A golden apple doth appear;
No doors there are to this stronghold -
Yet thieves break in and steal the gold.
