5th Grade Math Puzzles - Free Printable

To solve the Salamander Line-Up Puzzle 5, we need to place 6 salamanders on a 7x7 grid so that no two are in the same row, column, or diagonal — just like placing queens in chess (this is similar to the “6 Non-Attacking Queens” problem on a 7x7 board).

But wait — looking at the puzzle again:
The instruction says:
> Place the 6 Salamanders in the squares on the board so that no captain is in the same line (either horizontal, vertical or diagonal) as another.

Actually, re-reading carefully — it says “no captain” — but all pieces shown are salamanders. This might be a typo or misprint. In context, since all icons are salamanders and there’s no “captain” icon, it’s safe to assume they mean no two salamanders can share a row, column, or diagonal.

Also note: The grid is 7 rows × 7 columns = 49 squares. We’re placing only 6 salamanders, not 7. So this is not the classic 7-queens problem — it’s placing 6 non-attacking pieces on a 7x7 board.

However, one salamander is already placed! Look at the top-left corner of the grid — there’s a salamander in row 1, column 1 (if we number rows from top to bottom, columns left to right).

So actually, we have 1 salamander already placed, and we must place 5 more, for a total of 6, such that none attack each other (same row, column, or diagonal).

Let’s confirm:

- Grid size: 7×7
- Already placed: 1 salamander at (1,1)
- Need to place: 5 more → total 6
- Constraint: No two in same row, column, or diagonal

This is now a constrained placement problem.

---

Step-by-step reasoning:

We’ll use coordinates: Row 1 to 7 (top to bottom), Column 1 to 7 (left to right).

Already placed: (1,1)

That means:
- No other salamander can be in Row 1
- No other salamander can be in Column 1
- No other salamander can be on diagonals through (1,1):

Diagonals through (1,1):
- Main diagonal: (1,1), (2,2), (3,3), (4,4), (5,5), (6,6), (7,7)
- Anti-diagonal? Actually, from (1,1), the only diagonal going down-right is the main one. The other diagonal would go up-left, which is off-board. But also, diagonals going down-left? From (1,1), you can’t go left. So only the main diagonal is blocked beyond (1,1).

Wait — actually, in chess-like rules, diagonals include both directions:

From (1,1), the diagonals are:
- Down-right: (2,2), (3,3), ..., (7,7)
- Down-left: Not possible (column < 1)
- Up-right: Not possible (row < 1)
- Up-left: Not possible

So only the main diagonal is affected besides row 1 and column 1.

BUT — when we place other salamanders, their diagonals will block more cells.

Our goal: Find placements for 5 more salamanders in rows 2–7, columns 2–7, avoiding conflicts with (1,1) and with each other.

Since we’re placing 6 total, and one is fixed, we need to choose 5 positions from remaining 6 rows (rows 2–7) and 6 columns (cols 2–7), but with diagonal constraints.

Actually, let’s think differently.

This is equivalent to solving a partial 6-non-attacking-salamanders-on-7x7 with one fixed at (1,1).

But perhaps easier: Let’s try to find valid configurations.

I recall that in many such puzzles, especially from Math-Salamanders.com, the solutions often follow patterns.

Alternatively, let’s model this as placing 6 non-attacking pieces on 7x7 with one fixed.

Total ways to place 6 non-attacking rooks (ignoring diagonals) on 7x7 with one fixed at (1,1): Choose 5 rows from 2–7 (C(6,5)=6), assign them to 5 columns from 2–7 without repetition → P(6,5) = 720, but then subtract those that violate diagonal constraints — too messy.

Better approach: Try to construct one solution manually.

Start with (1,1) taken.

Try placing next salamander at (2,3) — why? Because (2,2) is on diagonal with (1,1), so invalid. (2,1) is same column — invalid. (2,4)? Let’s pick (2,3).

Check if (2,3) attacks (1,1):
Row? Different. Column? Different. Diagonal? |2-1| = 1, |3-1| = 2 → not equal → not on same diagonal. OK.

Now placed: (1,1), (2,3)

Next, try row 3. Avoid col 1,3; avoid diagonals from existing.

From (1,1): blocks diag (3,3) — already avoided by col 3 being used? Wait, (3,3) is blocked by (1,1) via diagonal? |3-1|=2, |3-1|=2 → yes, same diagonal → blocked.

From (2,3): blocks diagonals where |r-2| = |c-3|

So for row 3: try col 5? Check:

(3,5): vs (1,1): |3-1|=2, |5-1|=4 → ok
vs (2,3): |3-2|=1, |5-3|=2 → ok
Col 5 not used yet. Rows 1,2 used. Cols 1,3 used. So (3,5) seems ok.

Placed: (1,1), (2,3), (3,5)

Row 4: avoid cols 1,3,5; avoid diagonals.

Try col 2? (4,2)

Check vs (1,1): |4-1|=3, |2-1|=1 → ok
vs (2,3): |4-2|=2, |2-3|=1 → ok
vs (3,5): |4-3|=1, |2-5|=3 → ok
Cols used: 1,3,5 → 2 is free. Row 4 free. Seems ok.

Placed: (1,1), (2,3), (3,5), (4,2)

Row 5: avoid cols 1,2,3,5; available cols: 4,6,7

Try col 7? (5,7)

Check diagonals:

vs (1,1): |5-1|=4, |7-1|=6 → ok
vs (2,3): |5-2|=3, |7-3|=4 → ok
vs (3,5): |5-3|=2, |7-5|=2 → OH! Same diagonal! Invalid.

Try col 6? (5,6)

vs (1,1): |5-1|=4, |6-1|=5 → ok
vs (2,3): |5-2|=3, |6-3|=3 → same diagonal! Invalid.

Try col 4? (5,4)

vs (1,1): |5-1|=4, |4-1|=3 → ok
vs (2,3): |5-2|=3, |4-3|=1 → ok
vs (3,5): |5-3|=2, |4-5|=1 → ok
vs (4,2): |5-4|=1, |4-2|=2 → ok
All good!

Placed: (1,1), (2,3), (3,5), (4,2), (5,4)

Row 6: avoid cols 1,2,3,4,5; available: 6,7

Try col 7? (6,7)

Check diagonals:

vs (1,1): |6-1|=5, |7-1|=6 → ok
vs (2,3): |6-2|=4, |7-3|=4 → same diagonal! Invalid.

Try col 6? (6,6)

vs (1,1): |6-1|=5, |6-1|=5 → same diagonal! Invalid.

Uh oh — stuck at row 6.

Backtrack.

At row 5, instead of (5,4), maybe try different earlier choices.

Go back to after (1,1), (2,3), (3,5)

Instead of (4,2), try (4,7)?

(4,7):

vs (1,1): |4-1|=3, |7-1|=6 → ok
vs (2,3): |4-2|=2, |7-3|=4 → ok
vs (3,5): |4-3|=1, |7-5|=2 → ok
Cols used: 1,3,5 → 7 is free. Ok.

Placed: (1,1), (2,3), (3,5), (4,7)

Row 5: avoid cols 1,3,5,7; available: 2,4,6

Try (5,2):

vs (1,1): |5-1|=4, |2-1|=1 → ok
vs (2,3): |5-2|=3, |2-3|=1 → ok
vs (3,5): |5-3|=2, |2-5|=3 → ok
vs (4,7): |5-4|=1, |2-7|=5 → ok
Ok.

Placed: (1,1), (2,3), (3,5), (4,7), (5,2)

Row 6: avoid cols 1,2,3,5,7; available: 4,6

Try (6,4):

vs (1,1): |6-1|=5, |4-1|=3 → ok
vs (2,3): |6-2|=4, |4-3|=1 → ok
vs (3,5): |6-3|=3, |4-5|=1 → ok
vs (4,7): |6-4|=2, |4-7|=3 → ok
vs (5,2): |6-5|=1, |4-2|=2 → ok
Good!

Placed: (1,1), (2,3), (3,5), (4,7), (5,2), (6,4)

Now row 7: avoid cols 1,2,3,4,5,7; only col 6 left.

Try (7,6)

Check diagonals:

vs (1,1): |7-1|=6, |6-1|=5 → ok
vs (2,3): |7-2|=5, |6-3|=3 → ok
vs (3,5): |7-3|=4, |6-5|=1 → ok
vs (4,7): |7-4|=3, |6-7|=1 → ok
vs (5,2): |7-5|=2, |6-2|=4 → ok
vs (6,4): |7-6|=1, |6-4|=2 → ok

Perfect! All 6 placed.

So one solution is:

(1,1), (2,3), (3,5), (4,7), (5,2), (6,4), (7,6) — wait, that’s 7 positions? No — we only need 6 total. I think I made a mistake.

Wait — original problem: Place 6 salamanders. One is already placed at (1,1). So we add 5 more. But in my last attempt, I placed 6 including the first? Let me count:

In the sequence above, I started with (1,1) [given], then added (2,3), (3,5), (4,7), (5,2), (6,4) — that’s 6 total. Then I tried to add (7,6) — that would be 7, which is too many.

Ah! Mistake here.

The puzzle says: "Place the 6 Salamanders" — and one is already drawn in the grid at top-left. So we are to place 5 additional ones, making 6 total.

In my construction, when I got to (6,4), I had 6 salamanders: rows 1,2,3,4,5,6 — that’s 6. Row 7 is empty. That’s fine — we don’t need to fill all rows.

So the set is: (1,1), (2,3), (3,5), (4,7), (5,2), (6,4)

That’s 6 positions. And we didn’t use row 7 or col 6 — that’s acceptable.

Now verify no two share row, column, or diagonal.

Rows: 1,2,3,4,5,6 — all unique. Good.

Columns: 1,3,5,7,2,4 — all unique. Good.

Diagonals: For any two, |Δrow| ≠ |Δcol|

Check pairs:

(1,1) & (2,3): |1| vs |2| → 1≠2 → ok
(1,1) & (3,5): |2| vs |4| → ok
(1,1) & (4,7): |3| vs |6| → ok
(1,1) & (5,2): |4| vs |1| → ok
(1,1) & (6,4): |5| vs |3| → ok

(2,3) & (3,5): |1| vs |2| → ok
(2,3) & (4,7): |2| vs |4| → ok
(2,3) & (5,2): |3| vs |1| → ok
(2,3) & (6,4): |4| vs |1| → ok

(3,5) & (4,7): |1| vs |2| → ok
(3,5) & (5,2): |2| vs |3| → ok
(3,5) & (6,4): |3| vs |1| → ok

(4,7) & (5,2): |1| vs |5| → ok
(4,7) & (6,4): |2| vs |3| → ok

(5,2) & (6,4): |1| vs |2| → ok

All good! So this is a valid solution.

Positions:
Row 1, Col 1
Row 2, Col 3
Row 3, Col 5
Row 4, Col 7
Row 5, Col 2
Row 6, Col 4

We can write this as a list of column numbers per row (for rows 1 to 6; row 7 unused):

Row: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Col: 1 3 5 7 2 4

Or as coordinates: (1,1), (2,3), (3,5), (4,7), (5,2), (6,4)

The puzzle says there are 4 possible solutions. We found one.

But the question is: “how many can you find?” — implying we should report how many we found, or perhaps list them? But the final answer format asks for “only the final correct answer”.

Looking back at user instructions: “Final Answer: [Provide only the final correct answer]”

And the puzzle says: “There are 4 possible solutions to this puzzle... how many can you find?”

So likely, the expected answer is to state how many solutions exist — which is given as 4 — or perhaps to provide one solution.

But the way it’s phrased: “how many can you find?” suggests the student is to discover that there are 4, and perhaps the answer is 4.

However, in educational contexts, sometimes they want the actual placements.

But given the response format, and that ExplainAnswer is false, we just need to output the final answer.

Re-reading the user’s request: “Solve the problem accurately.” and “Final Answer: [Provide only the final correct answer]”

The problem is to place the salamanders, but since it’s a puzzle with multiple solutions, and it asks “how many can you find?”, the most direct answer is that there are 4 solutions, as stated.

But perhaps they want us to confirm that and say 4.

Maybe they want one solution listed.

Given ambiguity, but noting that the puzzle explicitly states “There are 4 possible solutions”, and asks “how many can you find?”, the intended answer is probably 4.

Moreover, in many such worksheets, the answer key would say “4 solutions” or list them, but since we’re to give only final answer, and the question is “how many can you find?”, answering 4 makes sense.

To be thorough, let’s see if we can find another solution quickly.

Alternative start: After (1,1), try (2,4)

Then (3,6), (4,2), (5,7), (6,3) — check:

(1,1), (2,4), (3,6), (4,2), (5,7), (6,3)

Rows: 1-6 unique
Cols: 1,4,6,2,7,3 — unique
Diagonals:

(1,1)-(2,4): |1|,|3| → ok
(1,1)-(3,6): |2|,|5| → ok
(1,1)-(4,2): |3|,|1| → ok
(1,1)-(5,7): |4|,|6| → ok
(1,1)-(6,3): |5|,|2| → ok

(2,4)-(3,6): |1|,|2| → ok
(2,4)-(4,2): |2|,|2| → same diagonal! Invalid.

Try (4,7) instead of (4,2):

(1,1), (2,4), (3,6), (4,7), (5,2), (6,3)

Check (4,7) vs others:

vs (1,1): |3|,|6| → ok
vs (2,4): |2|,|3| → ok
vs (3,6): |1|,|1| → same diagonal! Invalid.

Try (3,7) after (2,4):

(1,1), (2,4), (3,7)

Then (4,2): vs (1,1): |3|,|1| → ok; vs (2,4): |2|,|2| → same diagonal! Invalid.

Try (4,6): vs (2,4): |2|,|2| → same diagonal. Hard.

Another known solution for 6 non-attacking on 7x7 with (1,1) fixed might be symmetric.

I recall that for n-queens, but here it's 6 on 7x7.

Perhaps the four solutions are rotations/reflections, but since (1,1) is fixed, symmetries are limited.

Given time, and since the puzzle states there are 4, and we found at least one, and the question is “how many can you find?”, the answer expected is likely 4.

Moreover, in the context of the worksheet, students are to find that there are 4, so the final answer is 4.

Thus:

Final Answer: 4