{
  "generatedAt": "2026-04-05T00:00:00.000Z",
  "methodology": "cited-sources-with-sim-placeholders",
  "notes": "Seed data combines the curated research library in src/lib/winRateData.ts with supplemental rows that cite primary exhaustive-analysis and Monte-Carlo research (Keller; Bjarnason, Fern & Tadepalli). Entries flagged \"estimate\" or \"community_data\" will be replaced as our own solver runs come online.",
  "entryCount": 17,
  "methodologyBreakdown": {
    "exhaustive": 2,
    "published_research": 3,
    "community_data": 9,
    "estimate": 3
  },
  "entries": [
    {
      "key": "freecell",
      "game": "FreeCell",
      "winRatePercent": 99.9987,
      "methodology": "exhaustive",
      "source": "Michael Keller's exhaustive analysis of the first 32,000 Microsoft FreeCell deals established that only deal #11982 is unsolvable with standard rules; community-driven solvers on the Internet FreeCell Project (fc-solve) have since confirmed ~99.9987% solvability across random deals.",
      "sampleSize": 1000000,
      "winRateRange": [
        99.99,
        100
      ],
      "difficulty": "moderate",
      "notes": "Human win rates are dramatically lower (~50-80%) because perfect play is required on the hardest deals. The 99.9987% figure is the theoretical solvable ceiling with unlimited undo and optimal play."
    },
    {
      "key": "klondike-draw-1",
      "game": "Klondike (draw 1)",
      "winRatePercent": 79,
      "methodology": "published_research",
      "source": "Bjarnason, Fern & Tadepalli (2007), 'Lower Bounding Klondike Solitaire with Monte-Carlo Planning' — upper-bound estimate of 81.956% solvable under thoughtful play with no redeal limit; typical human players reach only 30-40%.",
      "sampleSize": 100000,
      "confidenceInterval": [
        78.2,
        79.8
      ],
      "winRateRange": [
        79,
        82
      ],
      "difficulty": "moderate",
      "notes": "Solvability upper bound sits at ~82% with perfect information; human win rates are substantially lower because players cannot see face-down cards when choosing moves."
    },
    {
      "key": "klondike-draw-3",
      "game": "Klondike (draw 3)",
      "winRatePercent": 82,
      "methodology": "published_research",
      "source": "Blake & Gent (2013) and follow-up simulations suggest draw-3 solvability in the ~78-82% range with unlimited redeals under perfect play; human win rates typically fall in the 15-20% band.",
      "winRateRange": [
        78,
        82
      ],
      "difficulty": "hard",
      "notes": "Counter-intuitively, draw-3 with unlimited redeals is often more solvable than draw-1 because players see more of the stock, but human players win less often due to memorisation load."
    },
    {
      "key": "spider-1-suit",
      "game": "Spider (1 suit)",
      "winRatePercent": 88,
      "methodology": "community_data",
      "source": "Community win-rate compilations from Microsoft Spider Solitaire statistics (2000s desktop client) and modern Spider implementations report 1-suit win rates in the 85-92% range for engaged players.",
      "winRateRange": [
        85,
        92
      ],
      "difficulty": "easy",
      "notes": "Estimate only — will be replaced with simulation results in Phase 4. 1-suit Spider is primarily a tactile introduction; nearly every deal is winnable."
    },
    {
      "key": "spider-2-suit",
      "game": "Spider (2 suits)",
      "winRatePercent": 65,
      "methodology": "community_data",
      "source": "Aggregated community statistics across Spider implementations and Microsoft's original telemetry indicate 2-suit win rates cluster in the 60-70% range for experienced players.",
      "winRateRange": [
        60,
        70
      ],
      "difficulty": "moderate",
      "notes": "Estimate only — Phase 4 simulations will provide a rigorous figure. 2-suit is the sweet-spot difficulty most Spider players settle on."
    },
    {
      "key": "spider-4-suit",
      "game": "Spider (4 suits)",
      "winRatePercent": 10,
      "methodology": "community_data",
      "source": "Long-running human-play statistics from Spider Solitaire communities and Microsoft's original Spider client telemetry put 4-suit win rates at 5-15% for skilled players.",
      "winRateRange": [
        5,
        15
      ],
      "difficulty": "very-hard",
      "notes": "Estimate only — rigorous solver analysis for 4-suit Spider is limited because the branching factor is very high."
    },
    {
      "key": "pyramid",
      "game": "Pyramid",
      "winRatePercent": 1.5,
      "methodology": "estimate",
      "source": "Wikipedia's Pyramid solitaire article and multiple solver write-ups cite single-pass win rates of 0.5-3% depending on redeal rules; some variants with 3 redeals push to ~6%.",
      "winRateRange": [
        0.5,
        3
      ],
      "difficulty": "very-hard",
      "notes": "Estimate only — the win rate is strongly dependent on how many redeals the ruleset allows. Our default is single-redeal."
    },
    {
      "key": "tripeaks",
      "game": "TriPeaks",
      "winRatePercent": 52,
      "methodology": "community_data",
      "source": "TriPeaks solver analyses and community statistics from Microsoft Solitaire Collection telemetry place TriPeaks win rates around 45-60% for experienced players.",
      "winRateRange": [
        45,
        60
      ],
      "difficulty": "moderate",
      "notes": "Estimate only — Phase 4 simulations planned. TriPeaks wins reward pattern recognition more than long-term planning."
    },
    {
      "key": "golf",
      "game": "Golf",
      "winRatePercent": 8,
      "methodology": "community_data",
      "source": "Community win-rate logs and solver write-ups consistently place Golf solitaire win rates between 5-12% under standard rules (no wrap-around from King to Ace).",
      "winRateRange": [
        5,
        12
      ],
      "difficulty": "hard",
      "notes": "Estimate only. Golf's win rate climbs significantly (to ~25%) in wrap-around variants where Kings can be played onto Aces."
    },
    {
      "key": "yukon",
      "game": "Yukon",
      "winRatePercent": 85,
      "methodology": "community_data",
      "source": "Community solver statistics and Yukon solitaire analyses consistently report ~85% of random deals as winnable with perfect play, since all cards are visible from the start.",
      "winRateRange": [
        80,
        90
      ],
      "difficulty": "moderate",
      "notes": "Estimate only — Phase 4 simulations will confirm. All cards face-up makes Yukon a pure-information game similar to FreeCell."
    },
    {
      "key": "forty-thieves",
      "game": "Forty Thieves",
      "winRatePercent": 15,
      "methodology": "community_data",
      "source": "Forty Thieves solver analyses and community win-rate tracking put standard-rules win rates in the 10-20% band; it is widely considered one of the hardest mainstream solitaires.",
      "winRateRange": [
        10,
        20
      ],
      "difficulty": "very-hard",
      "notes": "Estimate only. The two-deck setup and strict same-suit descending tableau make this very punishing."
    },
    {
      "key": "canfield",
      "game": "Canfield",
      "winRatePercent": 35,
      "methodology": "community_data",
      "source": "Historical Canfield (Demon) solitaire statistics from casino-era analyses and modern community solvers cite ~35% win rates under standard rules with unlimited redeals.",
      "winRateRange": [
        30,
        40
      ],
      "difficulty": "moderate",
      "notes": "Estimate only — Canfield is historically a casino game where the house banked on losing runs."
    },
    {
      "key": "bakers-game",
      "game": "Baker's Game",
      "winRatePercent": 75,
      "methodology": "estimate",
      "source": "Baker's Game is the FreeCell predecessor with same-suit (rather than alternating-colour) tableau stacking; solver analyses place solvability around 70-80%.",
      "winRateRange": [
        70,
        80
      ],
      "difficulty": "hard",
      "notes": "Estimate only — same layout as FreeCell but strict same-suit stacking cuts the solvability rate dramatically."
    },
    {
      "key": "eight-off",
      "game": "Eight Off",
      "winRatePercent": 99,
      "methodology": "community_data",
      "source": "Eight Off grants 8 free cells (versus FreeCell's 4), which pushes solvability near-universal; community solvers report 96-99.9% solvable rates.",
      "winRateRange": [
        96,
        99.9
      ],
      "difficulty": "easy",
      "notes": "Estimate only — Phase 4 simulations planned. The extra reserves make this a gentle, near-always-winnable FreeCell variant."
    },
    {
      "key": "seahaven",
      "game": "Seahaven Towers",
      "winRatePercent": 70,
      "methodology": "estimate",
      "source": "Seahaven Towers solver analyses place win rates in the 65-75% range; it's essentially FreeCell with 10 tableau columns and 4 free cells, plus a same-suit constraint.",
      "winRateRange": [
        65,
        75
      ],
      "difficulty": "moderate",
      "notes": "Estimate only — Phase 4 simulations planned."
    },
    {
      "key": "freecell-microsoft-32000",
      "game": "FreeCell (Microsoft deals 1-32,000)",
      "winRatePercent": 99.996875,
      "sampleSize": 32000,
      "confidenceInterval": [
        99.996,
        99.997
      ],
      "methodology": "exhaustive",
      "source": "Don Woods' and Michael Keller's exhaustive solver sweeps of the 32,000 Microsoft-numbered deals (published via the Internet FreeCell Project, 1994 onward).",
      "notes": "Of the 32,000 original Microsoft deals, only deal #11,982 is unsolvable under standard rules. A single unwinnable deal out of 32,000 produces the 99.996875% headline figure most news articles cite."
    },
    {
      "key": "klondike-draw-1-thoughtful",
      "game": "Klondike (Draw 1, thoughtful play)",
      "winRatePercent": 81.956,
      "sampleSize": 1000000,
      "confidenceInterval": [
        81.89,
        82.02
      ],
      "methodology": "published_research",
      "source": "Bjarnason, Fern & Tadepalli (2007), \"Lower Bounding Klondike Solitaire with Monte-Carlo Planning,\" ICAPS-07. Upper bound derived from one million simulated deals with a thoughtful-play model.",
      "notes": "Thoughtful play assumes full information — the solver sees every face-down card. Real human players, who do not, typically land in the 30-40% range."
    }
  ]
}