Does anyone know the solution to this minesweeper problem?

I’ve always thought that situation requires a guess (I don’t see a way to figure out which of the 2 covered squares has the last mine), so if someone knows differently I’d be interested to hear, too.

The bottom square has a mine and the one above it has number 1.

@LostInParadise, how do you know? Wouldn’t it look the same if the top square had the mine?

It’s a crap shoot.

@Soubresaut is correct. There is no way to know. Other than accepting a 50% chance of hitting a mine. Or sailing away. ;-)

There is a 3 in the square to the left of the bottom square. You need to place a mine in the bottom square for the square with the 3 to be surrounded by 3 mines. There is also a square with a 4 to the right and two squares at the top corners with 1’s, all of which need an additional mine.

@LostInParadise No. Diagonals count, so:
* The 3 on the left could be referring to the two known adjacent mines plus one in either clear space.
* The 4 to the right already has 3 adjacent known mines below it, and the 4th could be in either clear space.
* The two squares at the top with 1’s have no adjacent known mines, and are adjacent to both clear spaces, so again, there’s a mine in one of those clear spaces, but it could equally be in either one, by all available clues.

Each square has 8 neighbors according to the rules. How do you get 8 squares if you do not include the diagonals? For the current game, there is a box with a 6 in it. You can only get 6 if you include the corner squares.

You can also put a mine in the top box and a 4 in the box below it.

@LostInParadise “How do you get 8 squares if you do not include the diagonals?”
– You don’t. You do include the diagonals.

There is a period between where I wrote “No.” and where I wrote “Diagonals do count”. So yes, I agree most squares have 8 neighbors (except the ones at the map edges).

“You can also put a mine in the top box and a 4 in the box below it.”
– You can, with a 50% chance you’ll be correct.

@Zaku , Sorry for the misread.

No worries. Just trying to be clear.