How this Queens game differs

What this site is

Queens Game is an independent, free implementation of the Queens logic puzzle. It is not made by, endorsed by or affiliated with LinkedIn or Microsoft, and it is not a copy of their puzzle: the boards here are generated by our own software, verified by our own solver, and exist nowhere else. If you arrived looking for the puzzle you play on LinkedIn, that one lives on LinkedIn — this is a separate place to play the same *kind* of puzzle, with a different library and a different set of tools around it.

The rules are the classic ones the genre shares: one queen per row, one per column, one per colour region, and no two queens touching, diagonally included. Those rules are not anyone's property — they are the definition of the puzzle type, in the same way that the rules of Sudoku are not owned by any particular Sudoku app. What differs between implementations is the board library, the interface, and what the site does beyond serving you a grid.

What is different here

The archive is the largest practical difference. Every daily puzzle stays playable permanently, and beyond the dailies there are 1,800 generated boards across six grid sizes from 7x7 up to 12x12. You can work through them in order, jump to a size that suits your level, or open a random one. Nothing expires and nothing is gated.

Every board is verified to have exactly one solution, and — separately — verified to be reachable by deduction with no guessing. Those are two different claims and we check both. The second one is checked by solving all 1,800 boards with a solver restricted to named human techniques; the results are published on the statistics page, and each puzzle's own page shows the exact sequence of deductions that solves it.

That per-puzzle walkthrough is the part most implementations do not have. It is not a solution image. It is the reasoning, step by step: which colour ran out of room first, which row locked to which region, where the pairing argument fires, and what each deduction removes from the board. If you get stuck two-thirds of the way through a board, you can read up to the step you need and stop.

There is also a strategy library covering each technique in depth, with worked examples drawn from real boards in the bank rather than from diagrams drawn to make the rule look neat. And there is a level builder, if you would rather make boards than solve them.

What we will not claim

We are not going to publish a feature-by-feature comparison table against LinkedIn's puzzle. We do not have access to their product decisions, their board generation, or their roadmap, and a table full of confident ticks and crosses about someone else's software would be guesswork presented as fact. If you want to know what their version does today, play it — it is free and it takes a minute.

What we can tell you is what this site does, which is everything described above, and that all of it is checkable. If something here is wrong or out of date, the contact page is a real address and corrections are welcome.

Why an independent version exists at all

Mostly because daily puzzles expire and people want to keep playing. A single puzzle a day is a good format for a habit and a frustrating one for practice: if you want to get better at the pairing argument, you need to meet it twenty times in a week, not once a fortnight. A large, permanently available library with difficulty spread across six grid sizes serves that differently from a daily.

The second reason is teaching. A daily puzzle has no reason to explain itself. A library does, and once you are generating and verifying boards programmatically, you are one step away from being able to explain each of them — which is where the walkthroughs and the technique articles came from.