How to Solve Web of Lies Puzzles
Web of Lies is a different presentation of the classic Logic Grid problem, except you are given relationship clues, rather than interpreting sentences with tricks of grammar. Your goal is to determine the correct groupings of the items from the lists given using the information presented by two types of lines.
- Solid (green) lines represent connections that are true.
- Dashed (red) lines indicate connections that are false.
I’ve always liked the heist genre, so in my Web of Lies puzzles, I will try to stick to a theme of international thieves who were once spooked by a run-in with the supernatural, so they got together to try to protect the world. They formed the Society to Pilfer, Inhibit, and Destroy Exotic Relics (S.P.I.D.E.R.).
In our first installment, we’ll look at some founding members and some details about their last job before creating S.P.I.D.E.R. Using the information in the web, we will determine the correct thieving specialty for each member, the relic they discovered, and what country they were operating in at the time. According to the lists in the picture, we have:
- Aliases: Alec, Fatima, Sisko, and Tanya
- Specialties: Burglar, Con Artist, Hacker, and Pickpocket
- Countries: Indonesia, Lithuania, Oman, and Tuvalu
- Relics: A Book, a Chalice, a Coin, and a Ring
| Alias | Specialty | Country | Relic |
| Alec | |||
| Fatima | |||
| Sisko | |||
| Tanya |
Now, if we were to simply convert the information presented in the web to a classic logic grid format, we are already given all the positive and negative connections, so the puzzle would be quite easy to solve by simply filling out the spaces on the grid. That’s not nearly as challenging, though, so let’s see what we can figure out without drawing a different diagram. We’ll start with what we know about the Aliases.
We have direct information about three of the four names. Alec was in Indonesia, Sisko was a Con Artist, and Fatima did not find the Book.
As indirect information, this also tells us that Alec and Fatima were not Con Artists, and neither Fatima nor Sisko were in Indonesia. Let’s update our table. For simplicity, we won’t put the false connections when we know the correct placements.
| Alias | Specialty | Country | Relic |
| Alec | Indonesia | ||
| Fatima | |||
| Sisko | Con Artist | ||
| Tanya |
Let’s look at what we can deduce from the next group. Here, we see that the Hacker was in Lithuania, the Burglar was not in Tuvalu, and the Pickpocket encountered the Ring.
Since we’re working from a table which only has rows stemming from the names, we can’t write much of this down yet, so what did we learn in indirect relationships?
If the Hacker was in Lithuania, and the Pickpocket encountered the Ring, then neither of those is true for Sisko, because he is the Con Artist.
At the same time, because we know Alec was in Indonesia, he can’t be the Hacker.
| Alias | Specialty | Country | Relic |
| Alec | Indonesia | ||
| Fatima | |||
| Sisko | Con Artist | ||
| Tanya |
Next, we’ll look at the Countries. We already know that Alec was in Indonesia, the Burglar wasn’t in Tuvalu, and that the Hacker was in Lithuania. Now we see that the Chalice was encountered in Oman, and the Ring was not found in Tuvalu.
So now we know that Alec didn’t find the Chalice, because he wasn’t in Oman. This also tells us that the Hacker, in Lithuania, didn’t encounter the Chalice or the Ring (that was the Pickpocket). Finally, we also know that the Pickpocket, who encountered the Ring, was not in Tuvalu.
So far, we’ve mostly been doing eliminations. Let’s add some remaining possible truths into our table, in parentheses.
| Alias | Specialty | Country | Relic |
| Alec | (Pickpocket) (Burglar) | Indonesia | |
| Fatima | |||
| Sisko | Con Artist | (Oman) (Tuvalu) | |
| Tanya |
That still looks pretty barren, because most of our known true connections aren’t directly related to the names. What happens if we consider things a different way? Can we deduce more information if we look at it from the Countries, which had a total of 5 direct connections instead of 3? What does that table look like?
| Country | Alias | Specialty | Relic |
| Indonesia | Alec | ||
| Lithuania | (Fatima) (Tanya) | Hacker | |
| Oman | (Burglar) (Con Artist) | Chalice | |
| Tuvalu | (Book) (Coin) |
Ah-hah! By looking at the Countries, we find out that Sisko had to be in Tuvalu!
We already knew that Sisko, the Con Artist, was limited either Oman or Tuvalu, but how did we discover which one?
Well, we had a dashed line showing that the Burglar wasn’t in Tuvalu, and we already know that the Hacker was in Lithuania. But, we also know that the Ring wasn’t encountered in Tuvalu, and the Ring was discovered by the Pickpocket, so they couldn’t be in Tuvalu. That leaves only the Con Artist, who we know is Sisko. Let’s update our main table.
| Alias | Specialty | Country | Relic |
| Alec | (Pickpocket) (Burglar) | Indonesia | |
| Fatima | |||
| Sisko | Con Artist | Tuvalu | |
| Tanya |
But, we actually know a little more. We know that the Hacker wasn’t in Oman, because they were in Lithuania. We also know that the Pickpocket wasn’t in Oman, because they encountered the Ring, while it was the Chalice in Oman. That left only the Burglar and Con Artist. Because we just learned that Sisko, the Con Artist, was in Tuvalo, that means that the Burglar had to be in Oman, which also means they encountered the Chalice.
And, we already know that Alec can’t be the Hacker (who was in Lithuania, while Alec was in Indonesia), and he isn’t the Con Artist, because that was Sisko. That left only Pickpocket and Burglar as possible specialties, and now that we know that the Burglar was in Oman, it means Alec must be the Pickpocket, and is also the one who discovered the Ring. Let’s fill in the rest of the table with that information and the remaining possibilities for the other Aliases.
| Alias | Specialty | Country | Relic |
| Alec | Pickpocket | Indonesia | Ring |
| Fatima | (Burglar) (Hacker) | (Lithuania) (Oman) | (Chalice) (Coin) |
| Sisko | Con Artist | Tuvalu | (Book) (Coin) |
| Tanya | (Burglar) (Hacker) | (Lithuania) (Oman) | (Book) (Chalice) (Coin) |
There’s one more clue we haven’t used – that the Hacker didn’t discover the Coin. We also know the Coin wasn’t found by the Pickpocket, and we already deduced that the Burglar was in Omar, so they encountered the Chalice. That means the Coin spooked Sisko, the Con Artist.
And since we already know Alec and Fatima weren’t involved with the Book, that leaves it to Tanya. By process of elimination, that means Fatima was the person who encountered the Chalice in Oman, so she’s the Burglar.
That leaves only one last item in each list, so we also know Tanya was the Hacker who found a Book in Lithuania.
| Alias | Specialty | Country | Relic |
| Alec | Pickpocket | Indonesia | Ring |
| Fatima | Burglar | Oman | Chalice |
| Sisko | Con Artist | Tuvalu | Coin |
| Tanya | Hacker | Lithuania | Book |
