Having played this a number of times, I am going to have to argue that this uses deduction. You have a chart that shows all possible directions your pieces can move. When I try to move a piece, my opponent tells me yes or no. This allows me to eliminate some of the pieces that it could possibly be. Eventually, I have elliminated all but one possibility and have deduced which piece it must be. You can also used deduction to narrow down which piece is which because there are 5 that can move straight forward, 5 that can move diagonally forward, and 2 that can do both. Once I have identified 7 that can move straight forward, I can deduce that the remaining 5 must move diagonally forward.

This is a fabulous game--no matter which type of logic it falls under. And I must admit--I consider the line between what is inductive and what is deductive to be fuzzy sometimes. Often both are at work.

Looks interesting! I have never seen this one before but I would like to try it.

Valerie - you are of course right. Although finding out general rules, it is a deduction game, because you know the options.
The feeling is induction, the game is deductive

My fault...

Again, while this is considered a classic "induction" game, a good player will use both forms of logic.

Using induction, you try to discover all possible rules that could be correct. Using deduction, you test those "hypotheses" and eliminate them. You can often be efficient and eliminate several hypotheses at once with a good test.

Of course, many players do only use inductive logic. They think of one possible rule and get stuck on that option until they learn it is wrong. Then they use inductive reasoning to think of another one.

True, Val, but I think you could say that about any game based on inductive reasoning. I'd say that both Eleusis and Zendo qualify as pure induction games.

Of course. But this is exactly why some students struggle when trying to understand the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning. The fact that we often follow our induction with deduction makes it harder for students to distinguish the two. On the other hand, once students understand that it is okay to be confused because they overlap--and that their confusion is a sign that they are finally grasping the deeper concepts...well, they just throw their hands up in the air at that point.

Heh - Looks like you added your Zendo while I was typing mine. Well, it's twice as good as most other induction games, so...

I agree!

Logically you are incorrect, it is a deductive logic game.

Induction is finding a general rule/property that is being followed. Specific to general.

Deduction is finding a specific property from a series of premises. General to specific.

In Mastermind, you are trying to determine a specific pattern through a series of guesses.

Richard is right, its deductive.
It would be inductive if you know the correct pattern and would have to find out the rules for putting the white and black markers

Clearly deductive.

How could I forget this one!
A true gem...

I should add that there's a strong deductive side to the game, too. Even if you have no clue what your opponents are holding, it's possible to know that you've got the best hand, or to calculate your odds of drawing the best hand. But even when you know you're going to win the pot, it's very useful to have a sense of what your opponents have, and what they think you have, so you can decide how best to lure them into making the pot bigger.

Poker certainly isn't inductive, as there's no accurate way of testing hypotheses. I really don't think it's deductive, either, since opponents can "lie" (i.e., bluff) when responding to your "tests" (i.e., your bets). Whether reading tells or other skills can be considered deduction is a tenuous question at best. I certainly feel safe in saying that Poker doesn't meet the "classical" definition of a deduction game.

I've known the designer for years. He lives close by my house.

Again not inductive, Black Box is deductive. Findine specific from general information.

The only negative of the game is that it can be impossible to find all of the hidden marbles if there 5 or more--it is possible the marbles form "shadows" so the final position is impossible to find:

Example--The final ball can be hidden anywhere where there is a ?:
........
..O..O..
...??...
...O..O.
........
........

But it can be turned into an inductive game, I think! If instead of firing rays, the searching player can suggest a configuration, and then the hiding player fires a ray!
Of course, it becomes by necessity finite induction, and that means it's similar to deduction... I suppose you could argue that it's deductive, but I think it's not. If the game ends not when the correct pattern is found, but when the guesser has proposed a rule (marble placement) that the hider can't disprove, then it's inductive, right?