Talk:Masyu

meaning of Masyu[edit]

It's true there is a word masyu (魔手 "evil influence") in Japanese, but "evil influence" doesn't make sense in this puzzle. Masyu was simply a misreading of shinju (真珠, "pearl") by the president of Nikoli (kanji have multiple readings in Japanese), and it became the nickname. So this is a mere coincidence. --Pitan 03:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I must once again ask if the misreading was intentional, such as a pun... it would seem unlikely that a puzzle would be named "incorrectly" without good reason, and the use of hiragana alone for the title can imply such an ambiguity is intended. Tangent: as a nod to that definition, when I imported the machanics of the white and black circles for my The One Ring puzzles, I recast them as "angel dots" and "devil dots". I was even able to define them in active terms: since the loop passes straight through angel dots but must have a bend next to them, they make order out of chaos; devil dots similarly make chaos out of order. Regardless of its etymology, "evil influence" makes sense in those terms. - ZM Zotmeister 13:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to love nonsense... According to Penpa-ponpa column on Puzzle Communication Nikoli, the president's mess was scoffed and Masyu (or Masyu-masyu) came into fashion in their office, and it was finally adopted as the official title. I don't think there was a hidden intention behind it (the title is written in hiragana simply because it is meaningless). I remember the dispute over the weird new title in the Japanese internet community. Enthusiasts are used to the metaphor of pearls, and still call circles shinju. --Pitan 03:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can picture a way that could have happened: president screws up title during a meeting; everyone else (knowing what that alternate reading can mean) tries to keep from laughing but can't bring themselves to tell the boss he made a mistake; it eventually becomes a running gag; someone decides to make it the real title. Things similar to that happen quite frequently in many cultures, more often than most anyone would be willing to admit. Thank you for sharing that tidbit, it's fascinating. - ZM Zotmeister 18:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed[edit]

The article says "White circles must be traveled straight through, but the loop must turn in the previous and/or next cell in its path", yet the solution to the sample puzzle shown depicts two while circles on the first row (3rd and 5th from the left) where this is not so. Can the instructions be clarified as appropriate? Cruzin07 (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those cells look correct to me; why do you think they do not satisfy the criterion for white circles? — Matt Crypto 20:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I misread that "and/or" portion of the statement. I thought it had to turn in the previous and the next cell. Staring at the solution a while longer, I see other examples where it turns before the cell but not after the cell. Cruzin07 (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May we add some pictures to explain the rules? Such as about white circle and black circle. 218.102.199.115 (talk) 05:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling should be Mashu?[edit]

Pitan Cruzin07 hello, as far as I know it should be pronounced shu and not syu. Is this now the common writing? Hexagone59 (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mashu is Hepburn romanization, but there are other systems. AnonMoos (talk) 07:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

solution rules[edit]

The next-to-the-last rule states: "A black circle with two white circles diagonally adjacent on the same side must have the loop heading away from that side. If not, and it went between the white circles instead, then the white circles would be parallel to that section of the loop, and make it impossible to complete the black circle." Then it goes on to say: "Black circles with three white circles diagonally adjacent can be fully completed by this rule."

I think the last sentence should read "...cannot...". Shall I change it? or have I misunderstood the solution rule? NancyANeff (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the statement is correct. What it's trying to say is that, if you see a black circle with three white circles diagonally adjacent to it, then you can fully determine how the loop goes through the black circle.

If the given was

○ ○

●

○

then we know where the black circle should go:

○ ○

●---

○ |

But if you think the wording could be improved, feel free to change it. :) —lightbulbMEOW!!! (meow) 08:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh, of course. I should have drawn it. Thanks. I think the wording is fine, my inadequate visualization was the problem NancyANeff (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]