# The 100 Point Maze

How do you score 100 points without using the same route twice?

• Welcome to Puzzling! I've edited your title, question body, and tags - please try to explain your puzzle as clearly as possible, and give a descriptive title.
– Deusovi
Jun 15, 2017 at 17:54
• $-7$ votes? Why? I quite liked the puzzle $(+1)$ Aug 26, 2018 at 8:45
• @MrPie Puzzles with silly trick solutions like this are frowned upon here. See Deusovi's answer and, specifically, the reactions to it. Mar 31, 2020 at 10:59

The trick to this puzzle is to

turn the paper upside down and go through the "61" and "18" point spaces, which have become 19 and 81 points respectively.

• Uggggggggggggh. Jun 15, 2017 at 17:50
• (I mean, the words ENTRY and EXIT are written on the thing and there's no question which way up they go. And the 21 doesn't turn into a properly written number on inversion.) Jun 15, 2017 at 17:51
• xkcd.com/169 Jun 15, 2017 at 17:52

Alternate solution, which requires a fairly absurd reading of the question, but one that's less absurd (given the available evidence) than the apparently intended answer:

Start at the entry, and visit 61, 21, and 18 in sequence by walking around the perimeter of the inside of the maze. You now have 100 points, and you didn't use the same route twice. Sure, you can't reach the exit from here without violating the rules of the puzzle, but that's not actually a requirement of the puzzle the way it's currently worded.

• By this venue of thinking, we can just add 100 points to our score as it was not mentioned that this is disallowed. Jun 16, 2017 at 14:36
• @greenturtle3141: Perhaps (the challenge doesn't say how you earn points), but I think this is the least absurd misreading of the challenge that makes it solvable (less so than the apparently intended answer); you simply have to interpret "score 100 points" as overriding the implicit victory condition, rather than adding to it. How you score points is entirely implicit in the question, and therefore it makes sense to use the most obvious implicit definition. How you win, though, is explicitly stated, so why not use the explicit win condition to override the implicit win condition? Jun 16, 2017 at 17:49