Toggle puzzles
Choose switches whose overlapping effects leave every light, tile or marker in the required final state.
Play Toggle Grid →Train by skill · Planning
Look beyond the immediate move. Build a route in which each action leaves the board ready for what has to happen next.
Current stateProtect the next destination
Planning workout available now
Move an ordered stack onto the goal peg. Smaller disks must repeatedly clear the way, so the destination you preserve matters as much as the disk you move.
Planning puzzle formats
Planning puzzles differ in their boards and stories, but they all make action order important. A move must be judged partly by the state it leaves behind.
Choose switches whose overlapping effects leave every light, tile or marker in the required final state.
Play Toggle Grid →Reach a destination while anticipating blocked squares, one-way moves, hazards or a limited supply of steps.
Format under editorial reviewArrange operations so that each move creates the conditions needed by the next, as in Tower of Hanoi.
Play Tower Transfer →Move pieces through restricted space without trapping the part that eventually needs the exit.
Format under editorial reviewTransport people or objects while keeping every intermediate state legal, not merely the final destination.
Format under editorial reviewPlace a fixed queue of tiles so equal values meet and double, while keeping space for what is still to come.
Play Double Up →A planning puzzle gives you a starting state, a set of legal actions and a goal that cannot usually be reached well by treating each move in isolation. Progress depends on preserving or creating options for later.
Many puzzles involve decisions, but not every decision is a plan. In a target hunt, the useful action is attached to what you see now: find a matching symbol and select it. In a planning puzzle, the board after your action becomes part of the decision. A move can be locally attractive and still damage the route.
Three ingredients make that possible. The state must change, the consequences of an action must be predictable, and the order of actions must affect whether the goal is reached efficiently. Sliding blocks, river crossings, Towers of Hanoi and switch puzzles express those ingredients in different ways.
The best immediate change is not always the best step towards the final state.
Forward planning begins with the current state: “If I move this piece, what happens next?” It is natural and useful when consequences are short. The difficulty is branching. If five moves are legal now and five more follow each of them, an unstructured search grows quickly.
Backward planning begins with the goal: “What must be true immediately before the last move?” It works well when the final step is constrained. In Tower Transfer, the goal peg must be clear before a large disk arrives, while the smaller disks need an ordered temporary home. In Toggle Grid, moving down the board progressively narrows the remaining repair routes.
Undo is useful feedback, not a substitute for consequences. It lets you test whether your prediction matched the board and recover without reconstructing the initial state by hand. Both games count the reversal in move efficiency, so exploration remains visible in the result.
A reset is broader: it restores the starting position but retains the move count for that round. This makes the interface forgiving without allowing a long unsuccessful route to disappear from the score.
Double Up takes the opposite position and has no undo at all. Its planning tool is the preview of the next tile, and a taken-back drop would falsify the tile count that its score is built on.
Double Up’s queue of number tiles is fixed by the seed before play begins. Before the queue is shown, a search places every tile itself, keeping the most promising board positions after each drop. If it cannot place the whole queue, or its best finish leaves too many tiles for that level, the queue is discarded and another is drawn.
The route the search found is shown as the reference during play. It is a strong route rather than a proven minimum, and it could see the entire queue where a player sees one or two tiles ahead, so finishing close to it is good planning and beating it is possible.
Every legal Tower Transfer state records which of three pegs holds each disk. The exact breadth-first solver explores that complete graph in distance order, so its first path to the goal is guaranteed to be shortest. Even the five-disk Hard game has at most 243 states.
Easy uses the familiar full three-disk tower with par seven. Standard and Hard select reproducible legal split layouts only after the solver proves that their route depths land inside the published 10–15 and 22–31 move ranges.
The generator creates only reachable states by applying legal presses to a solved board. An independent exact solver then tests every possible first-row pattern, chases its consequences down the remaining rows and selects the shortest complete route. A board is used only when its true optimum falls inside the difficulty range.
This matters because surface busyness is not a reliable difficulty measure. A board with many lights can collapse in two presses, while a sparse arrangement may require a longer sequence. Difficulty should follow the actual route, not the screenshot.
All three games put completion and efficiency ahead of pace. Tower Transfer uses a 70/25/5 split and Toggle Grid 72/23/5, both measured against an exact optimum. Double Up weights completing the queue 35%, tile efficiency against its reference route 55% and pace 10%, because merging well matters more than merely surviving. Those balances are specific to planning games; they are deliberately different from the accuracy-led recipe used for multiple-choice puzzles. Difficulty records remain separate.
A score describes one recreational puzzle session. It does not measure executive function, intelligence, decision-making quality or neurological health. Improvement can reflect familiarity with this particular rule as much as any broader change.
They overlap, but the emphasis differs. Logic puzzles usually ask which conclusion satisfies the constraints. Planning puzzles ask which sequence of actions reaches a goal while preserving useful future states.
Yes. Tower Transfer, Toggle Grid and Double Up can all be played without payment, registration or an account.
Tower Transfer and Toggle Grid do: one searches its complete three-peg state graph, the other checks every possible first-row press pattern and compares every valid complete route. Double Up is different. Its reference route comes from a search that proves the queue can be finished and sets a demanding target, but it is not a proven minimum and the game says so.
No. Toggle Grid remains the Daily-eligible Planning exercise. Tower Transfer is standalone while its longer Standard timing and complete circuit fit are reviewed separately, and Double Up is a new standalone release whose Standard timing is still being measured.
Put the route into action