<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
    <title>DEV Community: Augusts</title>
    <description>The latest articles on DEV Community by Augusts (@augsutss).</description>
    <link>https://dev.to/augsutss</link>
    
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="https://dev.to/feed/augsutss"/>
    <language>en</language>
    <item>
      <title>From Greedy to Smart: Optimizing the Block Blast Solver's Scoring Engine</title>
      <dc:creator>Augusts</dc:creator>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2026 05:35:21 +0000</pubDate>
      <link>https://dev.to/augsutss/from-greedy-to-smart-optimizing-the-block-blast-solvers-scoring-engine-395i</link>
      <guid>https://dev.to/augsutss/from-greedy-to-smart-optimizing-the-block-blast-solvers-scoring-engine-395i</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;My first post was about why I built a solver for Block Blast—a simple, greedy algorithm that showed me surprising lessons about space and strategy. It was a great start, but it had one big flaw: it was short-sighted.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;That greedy solver only cared about the next move. Score a placement based on immediate cleared lines and maybe a crude "open space" count, pick the highest number, and move on. It worked, kind of. But it would often make a move that cleared two lines now, only to create an impossible board state two blocks later. It was winning the battle but losing the war.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;So, I stopped just solving and started thinking: what does a strategic move look like? How do I teach the algorithm to see the board not as static cells, but as a system of future possibilities?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The Limitations of a Simple Greedy Bot&lt;br&gt;
Here was the core of my initial scoring function. It was naive, but it was a start:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;javascript&lt;br&gt;
&lt;code&gt;// The Old, Greedy Way&lt;br&gt;
function simpleScore(newBoard) {&lt;br&gt;
    let score = 0;&lt;br&gt;
    score += countClearedLines(newBoard) * 100; // Clear lines = good!&lt;br&gt;
    score -= countIsolatedCells(newBoard) * 20; // Holes = bad!&lt;br&gt;
    return score;&lt;br&gt;
}&lt;/code&gt;&lt;br&gt;
This logic failed in subtle ways. It loved clearing a line immediately, even if that meant stacking blocks high in one corner. It hated single-cell holes, but was blind to creating future unplaceable zones for large 3x3 blocks. It played not to lose the next move, but had no plan for the next ten.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Building a Strategic Heuristic&lt;br&gt;
The goal wasn't brute-force lookahead (that's for a future minimax experiment). The goal was a smarter scoring heuristic—a function that could, in one evaluation, estimate the long-term health of a board.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I broke down "board health" into specific, quantifiable components:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Future Flexibility (Weight: High): Empty space is a resource, but not all space is equal. A clean 3x3 area is gold. I created a countPotentialPlacements() function that would check how many of the next possible block shapes could theoretically fit on the board. A move that preserved more options scored highly.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Combo Potential (Weight: Medium): Clearing one line is fine; setting up two or three for the next block is brilliant. I added a comboSetupScore() that analyzed if a move left the board with multiple lines that were one block away from completion.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Danger Detection (Weight: Critical): The single-cell hole is the classic killer. But a more subtle killer is the "tall column." I added a penalty for height variance across columns (calculateColumnHeightVariance()). A flat board is a flexible board. A spiky board is a death trap.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Accessibility (Weight: Low): This was a minor touch. I penalized moves that completely surrounded an empty cell, making it accessible only by a perfect, unlikely block shape.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The new scoring function became a weighted sum of these strategic factors:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;`javascript&lt;br&gt;
// The New, Strategic Heuristic&lt;br&gt;
function strategicBoardScore(newBoard, nextBlockShapes) {&lt;br&gt;
    let score = 0;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;div class="highlight js-code-highlight"&gt;
&lt;pre class="highlight plaintext"&gt;&lt;code&gt;// Core Strategy Weights
score += calculateFlexibilityScore(newBoard, nextBlockShapes) * 0.4;  // 40% weight on future options
score += calculateComboPotential(newBoard) * 0.3;                     // 30% on setting up big plays
score -= calculateBoardDanger(newBoard) * 0.2;                        // -20% for creating risk
score -= calculateInaccessibleAreas(newBoard) * 0.1;                  // -10% for trapping spaces

// Bonus for immediate clears (but less important)
score += countClearedLines(newBoard) * 50;

return score;
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;

&lt;/div&gt;

&lt;p&gt;}`&lt;br&gt;
Tuning these weights (0.4, 0.3, etc.) was an entire afternoon of trial and error, watching the solver play thousands of games. It felt less like coding and more like training a very simple AI.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The "Aha!" Moment in Code&lt;br&gt;
The real test wasn't the final score, but a specific board state. The old greedy bot faced a choice:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Option A: Place an L-shape to clear 1 line immediately.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Option B: Place the same L-shape in a different spot, clearing zero lines now.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The old logic, obsessed with immediate clears, always chose Option A. Option A, however, would create a tall stack on the right.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The new heuristic saw something else. Option B, while not clearing anything, kept the board perfectly flat and left open a beautiful 4x2 rectangle. calculateFlexibilityScore() gave it a huge boost. calculateBoardDanger() showed Option A was risky.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;For the first time, the solver sacrificed an immediate reward for long-term health. It made a patient, human-like decision. That was the "aha!" moment—the algorithm had learned a core tenet of the game.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Results and the Live Playground&lt;br&gt;
The difference was stark. The new strategic solver consistently survived 30-40% longer than its greedy predecessor. Its average score shot up. More importantly, its moves started to look intentional, like it was working towards a goal, not just reacting.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;This iterative process—from a simple bot to a thinking one—is what fascinates me. The solver is no longer just a tool for answers; it's a playground for testing strategy.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;If you want to see these principles in action or dissect the board states yourself, you can experiment with the live version on my site: &lt;a href="https://onlineblockblastsolver.com/" rel="noopener noreferrer"&gt;Block Blast Solver&lt;/a&gt;. Try a tricky board and see if you can guess the solver's "reasoning" based on the heuristic above. It’s a fascinating way to reverse-engineer your own intuition.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;What's Next? The Minimax Horizon&lt;br&gt;
The strategic heuristic is a massive leap, but it's still an approximation. The true frontier is implementing a minimax algorithm with pruning—allowing the solver to actually simulate 2, 3, or 4 moves ahead before deciding.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;That’s the next chapter. It’s a heavier computational challenge, but after seeing the power of a good heuristic, I'm convinced it's the key to unlocking truly optimal play. The journey from greedy to smart is just the beginning.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;h1&gt;
  
  
  javascript #algorithms #gamedev #optimization #puzzles #ai #heuristic
&lt;/h1&gt;

</description>
      <category>algorithms</category>
      <category>gamedev</category>
      <category>programming</category>
      <category>showdev</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Why I Built a Block Puzzle Solver (and What It Taught Me)</title>
      <dc:creator>Augusts</dc:creator>
      <pubDate>Sun, 18 Jan 2026 09:12:42 +0000</pubDate>
      <link>https://dev.to/augsutss/why-i-built-a-block-puzzle-solver-and-what-it-taught-me-1ffh</link>
      <guid>https://dev.to/augsutss/why-i-built-a-block-puzzle-solver-and-what-it-taught-me-1ffh</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;I’ve always been fascinated by simple games with deep logic. You know the kind — easy to learn, impossible to master. For me, that game was Block Blast, a tile-matching puzzle where you fit shapes into a grid, clear lines, and try to survive as long as possible.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;On the surface, it’s a casual time-passer. But once I started playing seriously, I realized there was a layer of decision-making I couldn’t quite crack by intuition alone. I’d stare at the board, unsure whether to place a block here or there, whether to clear a line now or set up a bigger combo later.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;So I did what any developer would do: I stopped playing and started coding.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I wanted to understand the optimal move — not to cheat, but to learn. I built a solver in JavaScript that uses a simple greedy algorithm: evaluate all possible placements for the next block, score each based on remaining space and potential future moves, then pick the best one.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Turns out, even a basic algorithm can teach you a lot.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;What the Solver Showed Me&lt;br&gt;
Space is a resource. The solver almost never fills a corner early. It treats empty cells as future options, not just absence.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Combos aren’t everything. Sometimes it’s better to delay a line clear to keep the board flexible.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;“Perfect” moves are rare. Often, there are 3–4 placements with nearly identical scores. Overthinking can be the real enemy.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Why I Kept Going&lt;br&gt;
This started as a weekend experiment, but it grew into something more — a way to visualize board states, test strategies, and see the game as a system of constraints rather than just shapes on a screen.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I’m still refining it, adding a better scoring heuristic, maybe even a minimax lookahead. But the biggest win wasn’t a higher score; it was seeing the puzzle through two lenses at once: as a player feeling the tension of the next move, and as a programmer tracing the logic behind it.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;If you’ve ever reverse-engineered a game or built a tool just to understand a system better, you know the feeling. It’s not about solving the puzzle — it’s about solving how to solve it.&lt;/p&gt;

</description>
      <category>puzzle</category>
      <category>gamechallenge</category>
      <category>blockblast</category>
      <category>microsoft</category>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
